> Michael Casadevall wrote: >>> >>> My intent here is not to start a flamewar between autotools and >>> cmake, In some cases, autotools is the proper tool vs cmake due to >>> cross-compiling (which will hopefully fixed) and the fact that you >>> need the cmake executable to build any CMake package. autotools >>> configure script merely needs a shell interpreter, > > What do you mean "merely" needs a shell interpreter? For a fair chunk > of embedded devices out there, that's tantamount to saying that the > Titanic "merely" needs to pull into port. There are 3 cases for > embedded devices: > > - systems with a Bourne shell and ccmake available > - systems with a Bourne shell available > - systems without any kind of shell, or really any kind of resources > > Yes, Autoconf has more cross-compilation reach than CMake at present, > but it hardly covers everything. >
Don't forget all those PCs with Windows installed but no Cygwin or MingW: they simply can not use the configure scripts. Of course, one can require these users to install Cygwin or MingW, but what is that different from installing CMake? Regards, Arjen _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
