Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 06/30/2016 03:13 AM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: >> Only one extra phase (mkdir build). I think it's not so important. For >> windows and macosx I used cmake GUI it's so easy. > > We need this to be scriptable, not using a

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 06/30/2016 03:13 AM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: Michael Paquier wrote: You have not tested with macOS, and so did I. Thanks! I fixed this typo. But for XCode I see more corrections. I will can fix it today or maybe tomorrow. It would be nice to come as well with simpler steps than all

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 06/30/2016 06:26 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: Hello Hackers. I decided to talk about the current state of the project: 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql all work correctly

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Yury Zhuravlev wrote: > Hello Hackers. > > I decided to talk about the current state of the project: > 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql all > work correctly (all tests pass). > 3. Works done for

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Michael Paquier wrote: You have not tested with macOS, and so did I. Thanks! I fixed this typo. But for XCode I see more corrections. I will can fix it today or maybe tomorrow. It would be nice to come as well with simpler steps than all this mkdir build, etc stanza. Perhaps with a wrapper

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Yury Zhuravlev wrote: >> Hello Hackers. >> >> I decided to talk about the current state of the project: >> 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql all >> work correctly (all tests

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Yury Zhuravlev wrote: > Hello Hackers. > > I decided to talk about the current state of the project: > 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql all > work correctly (all tests pass). > 3. Works done for all contrib modules. 4. You can use gettext, .po->.mo will >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Hello Hackers. I decided to talk about the current state of the project: 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql all work correctly (all tests pass). 3. Works done for all contrib modules. 4. You can use gettext, .po->.mo will have converted by CMake. 5. All

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Thursday 26 November 2015 19:28:15 you wrote: > I think you don't understand the point: start with the *right* cmake > version because you could have to redo (a lot of) your work Between versions CMake there is no fundamental difference. On my laptop or desktop is already 3.4.0 (new KDE

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 26-11-2015 14:06, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Thursday 26 November 2015 17:42:16 you wrote: >> No point in doing any work if you don't agree with the basic prerequisites. > I meant that support for older versions of CMake I'll do when will implement > other functions. > I think you don't

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 27 November 2015 at 12:39, Tom Lane wrote: > Euler Taveira writes: > > On 26-11-2015 14:06, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > >> I meant that support for older versions of CMake I'll do when will > implement > >> other functions. > > > I think you don't

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Craig Ringer writes: > One thing to consider: I can't imagine backporting this to all supported > back branches, it'd be a switch for the next release. Right? Agreed. > That means he doesn't have to worry about what RH / Debian policy for their > old versions is. RH isn't

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Euler Taveira writes: > On 26-11-2015 14:06, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> I meant that support for older versions of CMake I'll do when will implement >> other functions. > I think you don't understand the point: start with the *right* cmake > version because you could have

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 27 November 2015 at 12:39, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Euler Taveira writes: >> > On 26-11-2015 14:06, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> >> I meant that support for older versions of

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Thursday 26 November 2015 01:29:37 Euler Taveira wrote: > I give it a try. Nice WIP. IMHO you should try to support cmake version > that are available in the stable releases. Looking at [1], I think the > best choice is 2.8.11 (because it will cover Red Hat based distros and > also Debian based

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 26-11-2015 07:33, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Thursday 26 November 2015 01:29:37 Euler Taveira wrote: >> I give it a try. Nice WIP. IMHO you should try to support cmake version >> that are available in the stable releases. Looking at [1], I think the >> best choice is 2.8.11 (because it will

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Euler Taveira writes: > On 26-11-2015 07:33, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> Maybe you are right. But by the time I finish my work I think 3.0 will >> become >> a standard. CMake is developing rapidly and soon will have version 3.4.1 >> And one more thing: a normal documentation

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Thursday 26 November 2015 11:10:36 you wrote: > Adding a new build > dependency is bad enough; adding one that isn't easily available is a > show-stopper. If someone decided to compile from source Postgres rather than install from RPM then it will not be a problem as to build CMake. On the

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 2015-11-26 19:22:23 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Thursday 26 November 2015 11:10:36 you wrote: > > Adding a new build > > dependency is bad enough; adding one that isn't easily available is a > > show-stopper. > > If someone decided to compile from source Postgres rather than install

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-11-26 19:22:23 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> On Thursday 26 November 2015 11:10:36 you wrote: >>> Adding a new build dependency is bad enough; adding one that isn't >>> easily available is a show-stopper. >> If someone decided to compile

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Thursday 26 November 2015 17:42:16 you wrote: > No point in doing any work if you don't agree with the basic prerequisites. I meant that support for older versions of CMake I'll do when will implement other functions. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Tom Lane wrote: > Not working with the cmake version shipped in current distributions would > almost certainly cause us to reject this patch. Adding a new build > dependency is bad enough; adding one that isn't easily available is a > show-stopper. You'd better think in terms of what's provided

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 25 November 2015 at 17:41, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > Many prewritten CMake modules fail to follow basic practices that make > them > > work anywhere but where the author wanted/needed. > Now everything is much better. And it is worth split "make" and >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Wednesday 25 November 2015 13:27:33 you wrote: > That was years ago, mind, but I > haven't seen CMake exactly taking over the world since then. KDE, MariaDB, neovim and etc. New projects usually selected CMake. > Many prewritten CMake modules fail to follow basic practices that make them >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 24-11-2015 13:35, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > News about CMake: > I built postgres, initdb, createdb, psql, pg_ctl using CMake. > After make install you can run initdb after run postgres after createdb and > use it by psql. Only for Linux now and realy bugy (and the code is very dirt) > but it

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Hello hackers. News about CMake: I built postgres, initdb, createdb, psql, pg_ctl using CMake. After make install you can run initdb after run postgres after createdb and use it by psql. Only for Linux now and realy bugy (and the code is very dirt) but it work! If someone wants to test or to

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:35 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > News about CMake: > I built postgres, initdb, createdb, psql, pg_ctl using CMake. > After make install you can run initdb after run postgres after createdb and > use it by psql. Only for Linux now and realy

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 29 August 2015 at 02:04, Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Browne writes: > > (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-)) > > Yeah. I see the two major risks as being: > > 1. We limit ourselves to platforms that cmake works on. > > 2. We lose the ability to

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:46:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2015-09-01 10:32:39 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> A monolithic patch replacing the GNU make build system with a CMake build > >> system sounds far too hard to write and review; we should

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Maybe we should merge all of the makefiles for subdirectories of > src/backend into a single makefile. The major disadvantage would be > that you couldn't rebuild a subdirectory any more by typing make -C >

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Greg Stark wrote: > It is tempting and I've been wanting to evalangize this approach ever > since read http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf but I've never > actually had practical experience with it and iirc it's always this > scenario of wanting to compile submodules multiple times that

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:49:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:28:49PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> If it allows us to get rid of our custom MSVC scripts, it's a huge > >> benefit, for sure -- that has been a huge pain in the

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Robert Haas writes: > I guess I'm a bit skeptical about the idea of porting to a new build > system. There's a good chance of replacing the problems we know about > with new problems that are no less serious, but merely unknown to us. > But I'm not going to stand here and

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 2015-09-01 10:05:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Where I do *not* want to end up is maintaining *three* build systems. > So I'll definitely resist any proposals to commit a partly-done cmake > conversion (which I fear might seem attractive at some point). Enthusiastically seconded. -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I definitely can see some advantages. Non-broken dependencies around > recursive make being a major one. But I'm also afraid it's a rather > large undertaking. There's a fair number of special kind of rules, and > we're

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-09-01 10:32:39 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >> A monolithic patch replacing the GNU make build system with a CMake build >> system sounds far too hard to write and review; we should expect to maintain >> those two build systems in parallel for

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:46:05 you wrote: > I would actually suggest that the cmake conversion would be better off > to ignore src/tools/msvc altogether to begin with. Build postgres by MSVC is important task for me. But Linux first of course. > A separate cmake build system would

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:28:49PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > If it allows us to get rid of our custom MSVC scripts, it's a huge > benefit, for sure -- that has been a huge pain in the neck since day > one. Moreover, I suggest beginning with a patch that replaces the src/tools/msvc build

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Noah Misch writes: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:28:49PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> If it allows us to get rid of our custom MSVC scripts, it's a huge >> benefit, for sure -- that has been a huge pain in the neck since day >> one. > Moreover, I suggest beginning with a

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Thanks all hackers. I have not heard of fundamental problems and continue its development. :) -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I imagine that esoteric platforms are not going to have cmake at all and are going to need their own installation anyway. Not sure if that's going to be more onerous than the requirement to install GNU make. If we get to the point where this is

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Friday 28 August 2015 13:51:30 you wrote: It's broadly interesting, but since it bakes in a build dependency on CMake, there is some risk that the dependencies become an insurmountable problem. (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-)) http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13605 you

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes: On 2015-08-29 17:53:26 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Therefore, either we will not find any portability problems, or fixing upstream those we do find will not be terribly difficult. Well, the difference to know is that we can't resolve that relatively

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes: On 2015-08-29 17:53:26 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Therefore, either we will not find any portability problems, or fixing upstream those we do find will not be terribly difficult. Well, the difference to know is that we can't

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: On Friday 28 August 2015 13:51:30 you wrote: It's broadly interesting, but since it bakes in a build dependency on CMake, there is some risk that the dependencies become an insurmountable problem. (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-))

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 2015-08-29 17:53:26 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Therefore, either we will not find any portability problems, or fixing upstream those we do find will not be terribly difficult. Well, the difference to know is that we can't resolve that relatively quickly ourselves, but that it'd rather

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 8/28/15 10:14 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: Hello Hackers How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build system? I would say, Yay!. I had that on my todo list, but I won't mind if someone else does it. I've certainly had it with the current build system. ;-) --

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 2015-08-28 12:32:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: Hello Hackers How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build system? What's your motivation for doing so? I definitely can see some advantages. Non-broken dependencies around

[HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Hello Hackers How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build system? Old thread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200812291325.13354.pete...@gmx.net The main argument against the it's too hard. I'm right? Thanks! -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional:

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: Hello Hackers How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build system? What's your motivation for doing so? -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services --

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On Friday 28 August 2015 13:28:49 Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-08-28 12:32:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: Hello Hackers How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build system? What's your

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Andres Freund wrote: On 2015-08-28 12:32:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: Hello Hackers How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build system? What's your motivation for doing so? I definitely can see some advantages.

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

On 2015-08-28 13:28:49 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: the other is how ugly the generated files are going to be, and are we going to carry them in our repo -- right now we only have configure, but are we going to keep extra files to cope with builds in systems that don't have cmake installed (as

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes: I wonder about two other things: one is speed of the build (not that currently it's all that great, given all the mess with recursive make invocations, but perhaps it can be even worse); the other is how ugly the generated files are going to be,

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

It's broadly interesting, but since it bakes in a build dependency on CMake, there is some risk that the dependencies become an insurmountable problem. (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-)) It is probably worth a try, to see what improvements arise, albeit with the need to accept some risk of

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2

Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com writes: (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-)) Yeah. I see the two major risks as being: 1. We limit ourselves to platforms that cmake works on. 2. We lose the ability to handle weird special-case tests that are possible (if not necessarily pleasant)

<    1   2