Hi Bruce, Julien,The main reason is to ease the maintenance burden and QA. It's really hard to keep single build system working, let alone two.
That being said, if there are volunteers to keep CMake build system synchronised with autotools build system, I'll be happy to hand over the responsibility :)
If so, I would start with adjusting our CI cluster (http://build.nanomsg.org/waterfall) to test CMake builds in addition to autotools builds. Adding some Windows boxes to the cluster would help as well (CMake differs from autotools by its ability to produce MSVC projects).
Martin On 29/08/13 16:03, Bruce Mitchener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Why was CMake put aside ? I always found CMake way more usable than autoconf/automake and the piles of crap that come with it. I agree myself ... especially on Mac OS X where you want to deal with things like universal binaries and an xcode project is useful. - Bruce
