Posted Nov 7, 2011 16:46 UTC (Mon) by khim
In reply to: Hmm...
Parent article: libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers
CMake manages to support Windows, Mac, Linux, and many other platforms, so I don't see why we should accept anything less out of a supposedly portable build system.
Because it refuses to support the most important platform: GNU. GNU standard is "./configure ; make ; make install". If you don't support that standard that means that you've put portability to other systems ahead of portability to GNU system. Which is kinda stupid for the Linux library because Linux is often used as part of GNU system. Even libraries which end up installed in non-GNU systems (like Android or OpenWRT) are usually build on GNU system and should follow GNU conventions.
I have to ask: don't your developers and users deserve something a little better than "barely good enough"?
Yes. They deserve system where hundred of packages can be changed using the same approach (config.site). They deserve system where said packages can be multiarch compiled in regular manner and installed using the same approach (make "install-exec"/make "install-data"). They deserve system where you can combine different packages in one "superpackage" easily. In short: they deserve to have capabilities of autotools.
This all works only if you use autotools exclusively. It may be possible to create something like this starting from CMake, I don't know, but since GNU is build around autotools... autotools that is.
Are you really too old to learn something new?
I'm not too old to learn something new, but I'm definitely too old to start pointless crusade with goal of total replacement of autotools with CMake. And world with a mix of autotools and CMake is much, much, worse then world of pure autotools.
to post comments)