On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:26, David Chisnall <thera...@sucs.org> wrote: > On 30 Dec 2013, at 07:23, Richard Frith-Macdonald > <richardfrithmacdon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In my experience CMake is far more of a burden because it doesn't have the >> years of documentation development that autoconf has, and (more importantly >> to me) because its a monolithic C program. You need to get the source and >> figure out what it's doing, and that's just easier to do with the configure >> script and macros in autoconf. > > This is simply not true. The vast majority of the logic of cmake is in the > .cmake files. The 'monolithic C program' (which is written in C++) is just > the interpreter. Large library projects typically distribute their own > .cmake files containing specific rules for their build systems, but these > compose with other rules. For example, LLVM ships a bunch of .cmake files, > which libobjc2 uses when building the LLVM optimisation passes. Qt, KDE, and > so on all ship custom .cmake files that simplify building apps for those > platforms. I don't think I've ever looked at the source for CMake, though I > use it for a number of projects - I've always found what I needed to do by > either reading the documentation or searching their mailing list archives.
Sorry for saying 'C' rather than 'C++'; didn't know that such sloppiness would offend. I looked at the source (rather than trying to find things on mailing lists) because the documentation for cmake is much less mature than that for autoconf. Yes there are rules files, but again documentation is less good/mature than that of the standard m4 macro language and shell scripts used by autoconf. I'm not sayingm there's a big difference between the two systems, just that the age difference means that it's less hard to find solutions to maintain a project using the older one. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
