[Development] syncqt.pl in C++

[Kai Koehne]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io at qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Richard Moore
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:44 PM
> To: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io>
> Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; Qt development mailing
> list <development at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Development] syncqt.pl in C++
> 
> 
> 	You're right. My wording above was misleading, I wasn't present
> myself. This is what I remembered people telling me afterwards.
> 
> 	Here are the session notes:
> https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_build_systems_at_QtCon_2016
> <https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_build_systems_at_QtCon_2016>
> 
> ​Yep, there's also a video. 

I was hosting this session. I don't think it was recorded.

> My recollection is that there was a small vocal group
> of people pushing qbs, but that they couldn't demonstrate any actual
> advantages it had. They offered a few up, but it turned out that people had
> already done that using other tools such as cmake. ​I think the only conclusion
> was that qmake is weak and that the maintainers want to stop maintaining it.

I take the blame for not preparing the session properly then. Anyhow, it was never intended as a decision forum in the first place.

Take this as a statement of intent. The maintainer of the Qt build system (Ossi) and also the qbs developers (Joerg, Christian, Jake) would like to switch to qbs for building Qt in the mid-term, and we have the backing of the Chief Maintainer (Lars) for pushing this forward. The Qt Company sees the value in doing so, and is therefore resourcing this.

We've been internally evaluating what's needed to get there, and will propose concrete steps on this mailing list at the appropriate time. We can have (and for sure will) have another round of discussions about whether cmake isn't the better alternative then. Anyhow, keep in mind that the Qt Project isn't a democracy, so don't expect a formal poll or so.

Regards

Kai