autotools用起來(lái)太繁瑣，OGRE已經(jīng)用cmake來(lái)構(gòu)建了，很好用。

In practice, CMake not only lacks a rich platform tests suite, compared to autoconf, it also lacks a lot of features from automake and libtool.

So why should you not switch an autotools-based project over to CMake?

Tedious
First and foremost, your configure.ac script may be large. Porting to CMake can be a time consuming and not so funnny task when it comes to the long tail.
iconv support missing
There are no standard tests for iconv(), neither for finding the compiler flags, nor whether it takes a const pointer.
pkg-config support broken
pkg-config support is reportedly broken as of cmake 2.4 patch 8.
Exported symbols list not implemented
There are no documented ways to specify the list of exported symbols for a shared libraries, so your libraries will unconditionnaly expose all their non-static APIs (libtool can use a flat list or a regular expression).
C99 compiler check missing
There is no built-in support to enable C99 support in the C compiler.
Objective-C flags not supported
You can add flags for the Objective-C compiler, but they propagate to C compilation as well.
Compiler feature checks missing
There are no built-in checks for any of the C99 features, such as variable-sized arrays, restricted pointers, macros with variable number of arguments, etc. nor for GCCisms.
Monolithic installation prefix
There is only one global installation prefix. So the typical Linux distro cannot set the global prefix to /usr while the system configuration (automake's sysconfdir) would be /etc. Very nice for "downstream" Linux packagers...
Installation paths hard-coding
As a consequence of the single prefix, you need to hard-code all paths from the prefix. Instead of ${docdir}, you need to hard-code ${prefix}/share/doc/${package} (${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}/share/doc/foobar in CMake parliance) and so on and so forth. BSD porters are going to have fun tweaking the paths manually...
Uninstallation not supported
There is sipport for uninstalling. That is a design choice. You'd better never ever try to install a package straight from the build tree, without a proper packaging system.
Installation testsuite not supported
Since there is no uninstallation, there is no of course no distcheck target either. How often did you get your source tarball right from the first attempt before a new release?
No cross-compilation
There is no documented support for cross-compilation. This is scheduled for a future release.
Limited documentation
Compared to autotools, the documentation feels a bit light. At least, there is a wiki, but that cannot replace a good offline reference.
Limited executable renaming
CMake is not quite as powerful as automake (with program-prefix, program-suffix and program-transform-name) when it comes to on-the-fly executable renaming. This little-known feature of automake can be extremely useful when building an operating system distribution with possibly conflicting executable names from different projects. For instance, it is very conveniant along with the Debian alternatives system.
No source tarball packaging
There is no built-in support for making a tarball (make dist). Some Version Control Systems can do it themselves (git does, Subversion does not). This is quite critical a feature for open-source projects.
No source tarball testing
As there is no replacement for make dist, there is no replacement for make distcheck either. From my not-so-humble experience, that is tremendously useful before doing a new release. (NOTE: when I write distcheck, I mean distcheck. I don't mean check which becomes test with CMake)
No gettext integration
Gettext is not supported. Targets for .po and .mo files must be added manually. Nevermind that this is the most widely used localization subsystem in the open-source community.
Awkward feature listing
Whereby ./configure --help gives the list of build option, cmake --help prints the CMake options only. Instead, it seems you have to run cmake in "interactive" mode and answer a question for each and every setting (much like Linux kernel make config).
---------------------------
當(dāng)然這些問(wèn)題對(duì)于我不是必需的，不過(guò)還是等我autotools用一段時(shí)間再說(shuō):)

這個(gè)相對(duì)于IDE來(lái)說(shuō)，有什么優(yōu)勢(shì)？

@飯中淹
這套工具現(xiàn)在對(duì)于我更多的是一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)和試驗(yàn)，如果希望和別人交流和共同開(kāi)發(fā)跨平臺(tái)（尤其是non-win）的代碼的話，由于需要對(duì)依賴庫(kù)進(jìn)行檢測(cè)，這個(gè)工作可以由autoconf+automake來(lái)完成。