99999.99999% of the time, a shell script would work better. Why do we need this garbage? Don't claim it's for standardization, because any program worth compiling in the first place is going to accept the standard parameters.
Of course you should be using CMake for all your delicious cross platform needs.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-26 23:46
Because we need yet another language to make circular dependencies in.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-26 23:46
>>4
Wrong, CMake is absolute fucking shit, I have no reason why people push it so hard, thinking it's the best thing since make files.
Who the fuck wants to put a fucking .txt file in every single source directory and maintain it? A fucking .txt file?! Stinks like fucking Windows shit.
It's for fucking retards.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-26 23:48
>>6
Excuse me, but I understand you're having trouble with CMake. Have you tried looking at the wiki pages or posting on the mail list before asking your question here?
>>4
CMake is great for application level stuff, but I've yet to see a really impressive build tool for systems software that wasn't make based. If you're doing anything that entails exotic CFLAGS, custom linker scripts, binary format conversions, etc. higher level build tools just get in the way.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-27 7:45
>>19
Waf is an interesting tool, which allows one to do complex exotic tasks.
tl;dr ver.: to define portable build instructions across multiple environments and architectures. Of course, there had to be a standard build for it, to prevent errors.
'course, you can use any language to do this one, if the environment supports it. Makefiles were meant to be that mediator, even if some systems do not support configure.sh.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-27 11:57
Makefiles are sign of crippling and convoluted design which stems from lack of standards in Unix world.