[Development] How about the future of qbs after Nokia sells Qt to Digia?

[Thiago Macieira]

On sábado, 11 de agosto de 2012 23.43.43, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Charley Bay <charleyb123 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was wondering this too -- Digia, care to comment?
> > 
> > I know there are lots of things going on, so it's likely details like the
> > "qbs" effort may take some time to plan-out.  However, it would be good to
> > "get-a-feel" for direction for an effort like "qbs".
> > 
> > Even if the answer is, "We're looking into it, and will get back to you
> > later", that's fine.  However, if the decision is made, please let us
> > know.
> 
> I know this has been discussed before... and the reasons why not have been
> told (I do need to search for them again... I know), but I am personally
> moving my personal projects from qmake to cmake. I am using only cmake to
> build Qt applications, and I personally think everyone should.
> 
> It would be great if from now you start pushing towards making cmake the
> official build system for Qt.
> 
> Again - you guys already spoken against it and I do need to review those
> reasons, but this is me speaking - one of the people actually using this
> beautiful system.

I'm not sure everyone understands the implications, so let's be *very* clear 
here:

Charley was asking -- whether he intended or not -- about Digia's plans to 
continue developing qbs. That is, the question is whether Digia plans on 
assigning engineers to work on the tool or not. 

To be frank, considering the engineers are still choosing whether to accept 
the Digia contract or not, it's WAY too early to ask about work assignments 
from Digia.

In that light, Diego's statement makes little sense. Digia's or Nokia's or 
anyone's task list is completely irrelevant for his own choice of 
buildsystems.


However...

It *looks* like Diego was actually asking about whether Qt intends to switch 
to qbs as its own buildsystem. If that was the question, here's the answer:

	There has been NO decision

Many people, including me, want to move away from qmake, the Unix configure 
script and the Windows configure application, towards a better, more flexible 
and more maintainable buildsystem. In particular, I'd like to see us do that 
by 5.1.

But the Qt Project has not decided *IF* it's going to switch and, if so, which 
buildsystem it will select.

Though from all likelihood, after the 5.1 branch is created, people will be 
allowed to work on implementing a different buildsystem for Qt and propose it 
to the project, citing pros and cons. Only after the work is underway and we 
can compare the competing solutions will we select one.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
      PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
      E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120811/b34a15b5/attachment.sig>