The purpose of CMake find scripts is to allow you to find a given library in a standard way. It's similar to pkgconfig. You can also just use pkgconfig from CMake if you want.
> I think our fundamental assumptions are different: you assume needs of the
> developers who writes the library are the most important. This is so
> stupid it's not even funny. If you write library for your own use then you
> can use whatever you need. But if you write library for someone else then
> the amount of human time needed to build it by new developer from a
> tarball is the most important metric. If "./configure ; make ; make
> install" works - then you are golden. If not - then your library is part
> of the problem and it'll be good to replace it with something else.
First of all, as I made clear, CMake provides a better experience for both developers and people building tarballs.
Second of all, most users never have to build tarballs. They simply install the binary package provided by their distribution.
Maybe what you're trying to refer to, in a very indirect way, is that distribution guys who package software are more familiar with autotools than CMake. That is true, but again, it's just the popularity contest aspect again. Most system administrators are more familiar with Windows than Linux; does that mean we should switch?