[Development] Other buildsystems
fransklaver at gmail.com
Wed Nov 2 16:27:10 CET 2011
Just adding some more fuel to the fire.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Thiago Macieira
<thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 14:42:28 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>> I constantly see strong opinions against qmake, but actually that thing
>> is not that bad as a build system. It permits compact build scripts.
>> It is declarative (very important IMHO). It is extensible.
> I like qmake when I need to write a simple application that has no
> dependencies outside of Qt, not even the former Qt Mobility. I especially like
> "qmake -project".
Since I started working with Qt up until now I've always liked qmake.
However, at some point I started trying to build bigger projects with
it (not even the size of KDE).
> But qmake is extremely limited. For any mildly complex project, with optional
> code, configure-time tests, interdependencies, it's a nightmare. When someone
> asks on IRC how to have qmake detect if a dependent library is present, the
> answer I give is "you don't detect libraries with qmake, you declare that you
> need them and let the code fail to compile if those aren't present". It was
> made for Windows developers who don't install third-party packages and use Qt
Fully agree here. This is exactly why I moved from qmake to cmake. I'm
not particularly fond of CMake, but I think it has a better learning
curve than autotools while keeping much of the same flexibility.
> And to add insult to injury, despite the valiant efforts by Marius and Ossi,
> the qmake codebase is rotting.
qmake may be like your stubborn, blind, old cat that pees all over
your couch. For all its flaws, you still can't help but like it. 
 Here I went through 4 comparisons before I thought it was decent
enough to be sent into the world.
More information about the Development