Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of Thu Jan 07 19:43:25 -0500 2010:
Yes, if there wasn't already significant investment in `make` for PostgreSQL,
I'd be looking into something else.
Sorry, I think you've misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting that you use
something else, or write a new installer, or whatever.

I was suggesting that you have a level of indirection between the PGAN client
and make so that it's easy to support both the current standard installer
(make) and whatever else might come in the future.

If your client always runs

make install
make installcheck

then you are *stuck* using make and good luck shoehorning anything else in

If your client looks for

# or whatever, don't be fussed about the names

then you can use make now and trivially use, you know, Korn shell or whatever
when the postgres community goes nuts and switches en masse.
And yes, I have extended a Makefile, for
[pgTAP](http://github.com/theory/pgtap/blob/master/Makefile). It was painful
for someone who knows nothing about `make`, but it works well enough.
Writing make is pretty easy. Writing something that writes make and shell and
whatever else is less so; that's what I was referring to.


Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 11 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcpan-workers @
postedJan 7, '10 at 10:36p
activeJan 8, '10 at 6:04p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase