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 :( )