Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I'd be happy to write more documentation, howtos, or scripts and tools that
> > enable users to set up a proper build system, but I don't think it's our
> > business to try to write our own build system framework.
>
> Any build framework is going to have limitations, obviously, and it
> would be bad to design things to prevent subprojects from having their
> own. But I think that is no argument for not having a build framework
> at all. If we try to go that route, we'll be killing a lot of useful
> code that isn't quite valuable enough (in isolation) for people to
> expend the work to create their own build system for.
>
> Even more to the point, we've already *got* a build framework, which by
> demonstration works for many of the bits of code that we are talking
> about spinning off. What we have to do is adjust it so it still works
> for them after they're spun off. It seems silly to abandon the
> not-trivial work you and other people have already put into the contrib
> build system; and also silly to expect gborg projects to individually
> adapt it to their needs.
Bingo!
We have often had the attitude "If we can't do it perfectly, don't do
it". While that applies is some cases, it doesn't apply everywhere,
and we need to be wise in determining when we are helping people by
giving them a 99% solution.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073