[Development] On qbs use inside Qt

[Mathias Hasselmann]

Am Donnerstag, den 16.02.2012, 12:19 +0100 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> Ok, so you have now all seen Jörg's blog about qbs. If you haven't, please go 
> read it before continuing:
> 
> 	http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2012/02/15/introducing-qbs/
> 
> Let me also remind you of the past discussions on buildsystems. See the 
> threads:
> 
> 	http://www.mail-archive.com/development@qt-project.org/msg00162.html
> 	http://www.mail-archive.com/qt5-feedback@qt.nokia.com/msg01361.html
> 
> Particularly Lars's reply[1]:
> 
> > Let's not change this for 5.0. Changing the build system is something that
> > can be potentially rather disruptive to our work. We'd then deal with both
> > changing larger pieces in the architecture as well as a changing build
> > system. It's better to look at options there once Qt itself has a stable
> > branch to work with again (ie. after we have 5.0).
> 
> Those decisions still stand. So reiterating:
> 
> A) Qt 5.0 will ship with qmake as the buildsystem
> B) other buildsystems are *not* welcome as non-optional dependencies
> 
> And since there has been as of yet no decision on the subject, let's also be 
> very clear:
> 
> C) it HAS NOT been decided that qbs will be adopted for building Qt
> 
> But if the qbs devs want to start adding files to the Qt installation like the 
> current pkg-config, cmake and libtool files, they can. I would personally 
> request that they make a 1.0 release of their tool first.

I have to disagree: A basic principle for developing software are
use-cases. For applications you get them from UI spec. For good
libraries you get them from non-trivial applications. For build systems
you get them from existing, non-trivial software you try to build.

For QBS it is natural to use something complex like QtCreator or Qt
itself as test bed.

Like you said above, QBS support would be optional. So you would see no
harm from their iterations: Causal people would stick to qmake, and
whatever.

Ciao,
Mathias