<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Michael Casadevall wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid9DBEADE5-BDAC-4C6E-8E09-F79464A130D5@aol.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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, </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
- systems with a Bourne shell and ccmake available<br>
- systems with a Bourne shell available<br>
- systems without any kind of shell, or really any kind of resources<br>
<br>
Yes, Autoconf has more cross-compilation reach than CMake at present,
but it hardly covers everything.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Brandon Van Every<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>