On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 17:04 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote: > > > > > Hi, what's wrong with plain GNU make, and the GNU auto-tools? > > Nothing is wrong with "plain make", providing that it meets your needs. > But often you want more than plain make can offer. There's plenty to > criticise with the autotools, the baroque complexity being the primary > one. CMake is a big upgrade from the autotools; it's vastly more > featureful and powerful, has better portability for modern systems, and > still works with make when generating Makefiles. The autotools have > failed to keep up to date with modern portability requirements; the > capabilities CMake has to offer are unmatched at the present time, > though it also has its own warts. After 15 years of autotools use, I > converted all my stuff to CMake over the last two years, and I'm not > looking back.
Then you are a happy user of cmake. I'm working on porting packages for GNU/Hurd and every time when I encounter packages using cmake the confusion increases. It seems almost impossible to find out where to make changes and, the build process is not traceable. (maybe It's just me :( ) _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
