> GNU make does not need any such thing like the CMakeLists that are ubiquitous with CMake. Then what is a Makefile? And if your dependencies only amount to l

> GNU make does not need any such thing like the CMakeLists that are ubiquitous with CMake. Then what is a Makefile? And if your dependencies only amount to looking for source files, then that’s fine. Many are more complex than that and include configuration options themselves. Again, I think you’re hyper indexing on just your own setup and ignoring anything outside of that, while simultaneously hand waving the number of bad makefiles out there and any shortcomings to drive home that Make is simplest. Meanwhile by your posts, you’ve had to create an entire scaffolding of support around your makefiles to make it appear that simple. How is that any different than CMake or any other build system/generator? In the end you’ve just orchestrated your own version of such a thing and are decrying any other system as overly complex or just needing adjustments. I believe we’re just talking past each other, but I’d really encourage you to consider that the reason you’re confused why people don’t just use Make is perhaps well founded and rooted in the number of things you have outright dismissed or don’t care about for your own projects. I’m not even specifically advocating for Cmake, but there’s no great mystery why so many projects use it or other build systems; it mostly lets them shift the responsibility of configuration to the system and focus on their task at hand. Again, exactly the same as C vs C++/Rust/etc…