On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Martin Lucina <martin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx said: >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Thougts anyone? Arguments for keeping the 0MQ compatibility library in >> > place? >> >> I think removing the compatibility library would be fine, for the >> reasons you state. > > +1 > > Just curious, what's the motivation behind reintroducing autoconf? > > Has CMake not lived up to its major promise which (AFAIK) is a unified > build system for Windows and POSIX? CMake support for cross-compilation is severely lacking in usability and I wanted to use nanomsg Gentoo even when crossdev is involved. Plus the fact that having a large C++ dependency on a pure C library feels bad. (To remind people, autotools generated distributions do not require autotools, you are fine with bash an make, cmake distributions do require cmake) lu