CMake is absolutely terrible if not destructive for non-trivial projects that require frequent build system updates and restructuring (especially those tied to cross-compilation).
GNU Make might have its share of issues but compared to CMake, it's dead simple and I've never once in 20 years of programming encountered a build issue I could not debug.
CMake has had me throw up my hands and give up in despair far too many times. It boggles the mind that people continue to use such a rotten tool. Probably because it looks attractive, superficially, but if one examines it in more detail any possible justifications for using it should completely fall apart.
It's indeed worth noting that cmake only supports one toolchain at a time, so it's currently not possible to build for the host while cross-compiling. This is a complete showstopper for certain types of eminently sensible build process, so if you've got one of those then you should look elsewhere.
In other respects, my experience has been exactly the opposite of yours. Right down to the supposed superficial attractiveness of CMake ("LOL", that's all I can say - shit's a fucking disaster zone at first glance!) that turns into horror on closer examination. (Since in my view, it actually mostly makes the right decisions internally - you just need to get past the spitefully bad scripting language.)
GNU Make might have its share of issues but compared to CMake, it's dead simple and I've never once in 20 years of programming encountered a build issue I could not debug.
CMake has had me throw up my hands and give up in despair far too many times. It boggles the mind that people continue to use such a rotten tool. Probably because it looks attractive, superficially, but if one examines it in more detail any possible justifications for using it should completely fall apart.