CMake is very portable (see https://open.cdash.org/index.php?project=CMake for details). About the whole autoconf history in Git, I came across this post by Linus while researching if anyone had done something with CMake in the git project before: > NO! At least the Makefile is debuggable and understandable. > > If we need a better build system, I'd much rather use something > higher-level that can generate VC++ project files etc. > > In other words, I'd much rather see us using CMake or something like that, > which actually adds real value-add. > > (And no, I've never used cmake, so maybe it has horrors waiting for us > too, but autoconf is just worthless). > > Linus https://marc.info/?l=git&m=115032515024816&w=2 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 1/24/2018 2:59 PM, Isaac Hier wrote: >> >> Jeff, no worries, fair enough. I know https://github.com/grpc/grpc >> uses a shared file to generate code for several build systems instead >> of maintaining them individually. I plan on doing the work anyway just >> because I have my own reasons to use CMake in Git (for packaging in >> https://github.com/ruslo/hunter is my main motive here). Whether or >> not it is maintained upstream is not a real concern for me at the >> moment. > > [...] >> >> I'll see how the Windows build currently works and if that makes >> sense, maybe I'll try using that build generator here too. >> >> Thanks for the feedback, >> >> Isaac > > > Look at the "vcxproj:" target in config.mak.uname (in the GfW repo). > > Jeff
