Martin, 2013/8/30 Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> > Hi Sergei, > > > 1. CMake doesn't work that well for cross-building. >> >> >> Who said that? What was the exact problem and was it raised in >> "cmake-dev" list? >> > > Find the discussion here: https://github.com/250bpm/** > nanomsg/pull/80#issuecomment-**20920440<https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg/pull/80#issuecomment-20920440> > > AFAIU, it's not a specific bug, rather the overall state of > cross-compilation support in CMake vs. autotools. > > It is not true. CMake can be and used for cross compilation. > > >> 2. CMake-generated packages have CMake dependency whereas autotools >> packages are not dependent on autotools >> >> >> Could you please provide name for that dependency? >> > > When you unpack the source package you have to do "cmake .", thus cmake > has to be installed. > > With autotools, the ./configure script is bundled in the package, so you > don't need autotools installed to build the package. To my knowledge when you do 'configure', autotools and perhaps m4 has to be installed :-) Now what? You have autotools for linux and cmake for windows. Instead of one tool you've got both. > > > I agree with Bruce - if it works why you cut it off? >> It was an option - somebody who use it will support it and provide you >> with pull request. >> I don't think it was intrusive for source code. >> > > It's because of the cost. Actual work needed to prevent bitrot of cmake > build system. If you volunteer to keep it up-to-date and functional all the > time, we can discuss adding it back. > Can we have both build systems? If somebody find that cmake build is broken, then he'll fill the bug or pull request in github. > > Martin > > -- Best Regards, Sergei Nikulov