At 03:55 PM 9/6/2006, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: >Michael Casadevall wrote: >>> >>>My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools and cmake, In >>>some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to cross-compiling >>>(which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you need the cmake executable >>>to build any CMake package. autotools configure script merely needs a shell >>>interpreter, > >What do you mean "merely" needs a shell interpreter? For a fair chunk of >embedded devices out there, that's tantamount to saying that the Titanic >"merely" needs to pull into port. There are 3 cases for embedded devices: > >- systems with a Bourne shell and ccmake available >- systems with a Bourne shell available >- systems without any kind of shell, or really any kind of resources > >Yes, Autoconf has more cross-compilation reach than CMake at present, but it >hardly covers everything. Autoconf may need only shell, but CMake only needs a C++ compiler. Which if you are building a c++ program, you should already have, but you are not always going to have a shell.
As for cross-compilation support, I have never done much with it, what tools does autoconf provide to support cross-compiling? If someone who has used autoconf for cross compiling could explain how it works with autoconf, it would be helpful when we add support in CMake. -Bill _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
