> I can envisage other projects doing a better job than make on its home turf. Of course it's possible, GNU make is far from being perfect ; it's a pity we can

> I can envisage other projects doing a better job than make on its home turf. Of course it's possible, GNU make is far from being perfect ; it's a pity we can't slowly evolve the language for backward compatibility reasons. Autotools also are far from being perfect. - As a project author, I like writing custom simple makefiles and hate anything related to editing "autoconf.ac". - As a package manager, I love projects using autoconf (or exposing autoconf's options, such as --host): they're the easiest to build because they all have the same "build interface" (alas, by default, there's no equivalent to "./configure --host" for cmake). And I despise projects using "custom simple makefiles", because it means that I'm going to have to learn yet another parochialistic BS (for build system) and have yet another special case for this specific project. Maybe one day we will have a build system that's loved by both sides? :-)