Isaac Hier <isaachier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I realize this is a huge patch, but does anyone have feedback for the > general idea? I personally am not interested, especially with the justification given in the cover letter. Perhaps the one in this patch may be "mostly complete", and I am sure you can make it "complete" against a frozen target, but it is unclear to me how you envision keeping the completeness up to date. Whenever a developer needs to introduce a new build knob, the support for it needs to be implemented in not just Makefile but now also in this other thing. Unless there is an automated bi-directional gateway to allow those who have been writing and reading Makefile not to worry about those who wants to build with CMake, and vice versa, you are forcing everybody to do the same work twice, no? Choice of build procedure for a project is like choise of SCM to store its source file. If the new system is 10x better to make it worthwhile to educate everybody to use it, switching to a new system and ditching the current one *is* a reasonable thing to propose and consider. But I do not think you are proposing to switch, and I do not think you are convincingly arguing that it is 10x better than the current one, either.
