Then build them. I'm not seeing the issue here, to be honest, so I'm not sure what I should be addressing.
If the issue is that you don't like how the dependency has arranged to build (I'm not sure why you'd actually care, but just in case...), then port the makefile (or whatever) to your preferred system.
Or, another guess, is the issue that you want to build all your dependencies as if they were an integral part of your own project? If that's the case, I would argue that you're doing it wrong and another tech stack would make you happier.
With what? The whole point of this line of discussion is that building stuff in C is suboptimal, often requiring the end user to juggle n different build systems by hand to get all the dependencies installed.
Since we're talking FreeBSD here, thirty years ago we had Modula-3 whose build system is lightyears ahead of anything make based.
And now we're back at: this is why C is more difficult, for no good reason, than the alternatives. For small projects that you're only building locally, your approach may work. Once you expect any sort of cross-platform compatibility and/or start distributing your project to others, this approach falls apart and fast. Instead of focusing on development you'll be focusing on playing whack-a-mole with incompatibilities between the different shells (or versions of make, etc.) offered on different operating systems.
Again the problem is that no package/dependency management for C/C++ means that C is balkanized and more difficult to deal with compared to other languages. Using third party libraries in C is far more difficult and error prone than it ought to be.
Pretty much every language that provides more comprehensive dependency management also provides easy enough access to allow you to NIH/DIY it if you need/want to. For instance contrast this with something like rust where cargo is standard across all supported platforms and provides proper dependency management. You can still call the rust compiler (rustc) and whatever linker yourself if you so desire.
Honestly if you lack the vision to see why that sucks I really suggest you try a language with good package management - e.g. Go or Rust. Maybe it will make it easier to see all the problems with the traditional C approach if you can see how it should work.
C and C++ dependency installation is "sub-optimal" but it is certainly well understood. The fact that there are many cross platform, open source projects written in C and C++ proves this. If you can't deal with makefiles and scripts, maybe stick to Go and Rust?
C and C++ dependency installation is "sub-optimal" but it is certainly well
understood. The fact that there are many cross platform, open source projects
written in C and C++ proves this.
Nope. It proves that people have found work arounds up to and including cargo culting things. Any large enough project is going to rely on something else to generate the makefiles, and if you depend on anything large enough you're gonna get stuck having to build and/or install whatever other makefile generators are required. Simply put it's an archaic mess.
If you can't deal with makefiles and scripts, maybe stick to Go and Rust?
To be clear it's not that I can't deal with makefiles it's that I don't find it a good use of my time*. Take, for instance, the FreeBSD ports tree. make(1) is its achilles heal and the main reason it's obscenely slow to deal with (even compared to something like portage). Besides, doing anything by hand is inherently error prone be it bounds checking array access or cobbling together dependency management.
* And, sure, in years past I wrote a drop-in replacement for automake/autoconf in perl whose big (speed) advantage was that it didn't spawn a new shell for each check. It was a neat hack, but that's all anything papering over the make(1) interface is.
