Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v13

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 6:02 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> On 24.09.22 20:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-09-24 13:52:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... btw, shouldn't the CF entry [1] get closed now?
> >
> > Unfortunately not - there's quite a few followup patches that haven't
> been
> > [fully] reviewed and thus not applied yet.
>
> Here is some review of the remaining ones (might not match exactly what
> you attached, I was working off your branch):
>
>
> 9f789350a7a7 meson: ci: wip: move compilerwarnings task to meson
>
> This sounds reasonable to me in principle, but I haven't followed the
> cirrus stuff too closely, and it doesn't say why it's "wip". Perhaps
> others could take a closer look.
>
>
> ccf20a68f874 meson: ci: Add additional CI coverage
>
> IIUC, this is just for testing your branch, not meant for master?
>
>
> 02d84c21b227 meson: prereq: win: remove date from version number in
> win32ver.rc
>
> do it
>
>
> 5c42b3e7812e meson: WIP: Add some of the windows resource files
>
> What is the thinking on this now? What does this change over the
> current state?
>
>
> 9bc60bccfd10 meson: Add support for relative rpaths, fixing tests on
> MacOS w/ SIP
>
> I suggest a separate thread and/or CF entry for this. There have been
> various attempts to deal with SIP before, with varying results. This
> is not part of the meson transition as such.
>
>
> 9f5be26c1215 meson: Add docs for building with meson
>
> I do like the overall layout of this.
>
> The "Supported Platforms" section should be moved back to near the end
> of the chapter. I don't see a reason to move it forward, at least
> none that is related to the meson issue.
>

Agreed that it's unrelated to meson. However, I think it's better to move
it in the front as it's generally useful to know if your platform is
supported before you start performing the installation steps and get stuck
somewhere.

Do you think I should submit that as a separate commit in the same
patch-set or just move it out to a completely different patch submission?

>
> The changes to the "Getting the Source" section are also not
> appropriate for this patch.
>
>
Given that many developers are now using Git for downloading the source
code, I think it makes sense to be in the Getting the source section. Also,
meson today doesn't cleanly build via the tarballs. Hence, I added it to
the section (and patchset).

Do you think I should move this to a different patch?

> In the section "Building and Installation with meson":
>
> - Remove the "git clone" stuff.

> - The "Running tests" section should be moved to Chapter 33. Regression
> Tests.
>

The autoconf / make section also has a small section on how to run the
regression tests. The "Running tests" section is meant to the be equivalent
of that for meson (i.e. brief overview). I do intend to add a detailed
section to Chapter 33 with more info on how to interpret test results etc.
Do you think the current section is too verbose for where it is?

> Some copy-editing will probably be suitable, but I haven't focused on
> that yet.
>
>
> 9c00d355d0e9 meson: Add PGXS compatibility
>
> This looks like a reasonable direction to me. How complete is it? It
> says it works for some extensions but not others. How do we define
> the target line here?
>
>
> 3fd5e13dcad3 meson: Add postgresql-extension.pc for building extension
> libraries
>
> Separate thread for this as well. This is good and important, but we
> must also add it to the make build.
>
>
> 4b5bfa1c19aa meson: Add LLVM bitcode emission
>
> still in progress
>
>
> eb40f6e53104 meson: Add support for building with precompiled headers
>
> Any reason not to enable this by default? The benefits on non-Windows
> appear to be less dramatic, but they are not zero. Might be better to
> enable it consistently so that for example any breakage is easier
> caught.
>
>
> 377bfdea6042 meson: Add xmllint/xsltproc wrapper script to handle
> dependencies automatically
>
> Is this part of the initial transition, required for correctness, or
> is it an optional optimization? Could use more explanation. Maybe
> move to separate thread also?
>
>