Added to TODO for Win32:
o Convert MSVC build system to remove most batch files
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg00961.php
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I want to overhaul
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I want to overhaul the MSVC build system somewhat and want to discuss
my plans.
[snip]. Apart from fixing the issue with using the systems "dir"
command rather than using File::Find, which I will revisit, I think
that's all I would do now, given how close we are to Bet
Magnus Hagander wrote:
David Boreham wrote:
To add my 2d worth to this: after working on a few very large
projects that built on both Unix and Windows my preference is
to use a single autotools-based build for both, with a script called cccl
that translates cc-style arguments for Microsoft's
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> That, or we create the makefiles in a fixed system and keep the
>>> Makefiles in CVS (though would be derived files).
>
>> IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
>> fewer plat
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> That, or we create the makefiles in a fixed system and keep the
>> Makefiles in CVS (though would be derived files).
> IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
> fewer platforms than pgsql.
> Howe
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
>> fewer platforms than pgsql.
>>
>> However, if we can go by Alvaros suggestion and keep the makefiles as
>> derived files, that could certainly work...
>>
>>
>>
>
> B
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
fewer platforms than pgsql.
However, if we can go by Alvaros suggestion and keep the makefiles as
derived files, that could certainly work...
But everyone would still need to learn it.
Maybe w
David Boreham wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven,
>>> so that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
>>>
>>
>> I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I w
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Neil Conway wrote:
>
>>> I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
>>> separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
>>> CMake[1] is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
>>> b
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build s
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
>> separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
>> CMake[1] is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
>> both makefiles and MSVC .proj's fr
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
> that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build systems is the best approac
13 matches
Mail list logo
