Re: WIP: About CMake v2

Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> 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 going to release PostgreSQL 9.7 or whatever for
> RHEL6, Debian isn't going to release it for Wheezy, etc.

Well, they won't if we make it impossible for them to do so.

More generally, I do not buy this argument for one second as a reason why
we can demand latest-and-greatest cmake, rather than something that's
likely to be readily available on a wide variety of platforms. Devrim is
not the only person in the world who will be needing to build PG on RHEL6,
or even older platforms.

If you take a close look at our build requirements, you will notice a
general distaste for insisting on latest anything. cmake is not going
to escape that project bias. Do you really think a project that still
works with C89, Perl 5.8.something, Python 2.3, bison 1.875, yadda yadda
is readily going to accept a patch that requires this year's cmake?
It would take a fairly impressive technical argument why working with
older cmakes is impossible/impractical before that will happen.

regards, tom lane