On 26/11/2015 15:00, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:33 +0100, aitor_czr wrote:
>> I agree with you: using "cd build; cmake ../" with *the final purpose* of
>> installing the spinner in the system is a contorsionism.

Not really, it's directly analogous to VPATH builds with make (and
configuring from a separate build dir with the autotools). It lets you
cleanly separate source and build (and have multiple build trees). It
also makes cleaning the build tree nothing more than removing the build
tree.

(I use this feature of cmake all the time--source in a git tree on an
NFS-exported filesystem, with build trees on several different systems
so I can build and test on multiple platforms at once.)

>> Although any user on planet Earth will install the spinner in any OS. With or
>> without systemd.
>>
>> But, what happen in the case of a developer? For each failed attempt, all the
>> garbaje generated by cmake must be sent to the trash by hand, because there is
>> no 'cmake clean'.
>>
>> So, keeping it separatelly makes sense in such cases.
>
> 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.


Regards,
Roger