Re: Possible next releases of CTWM >4.1.x without use of CMAKE ?

./configure isn't much better, but cmake isnt much better either.

I may quote here from suckless.org website:
cmake <http://www.cmake.org/> (written in C++) - so huge and bloated,
compilation takes longer than compiling GCC (!). It’s not even possible to
create freestanding Makefiles, since the generated Makefiles call back into
the cmake binary itself.

Maybe there are some other alternatives... ?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Rhialto <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu 11 May 2017 at 20:51:19 +0200, spartrekus spartrekus wrote:
> > , I
> > have a strong believe that simple way for compiling are likely the best
> > option to go.
>
> > ./configure
>
> Have you ever looked at the horrible monstrosities that are in those
> configure script? They are so horrible you cannot write them by hand and
> need several horrible multi-phase macro-expanding tools. I have worked
> with the GNU autotools out of necessity, and I can't say I'm a big fan.
>
> Cheers,
> -Olaf.
> --
> ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert  -- Wayland: Those who don't understand X
> \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl    -- are condemned to reinvent it. Poorly.
>