[Development] Future of QBS
Jake.Petroules at qt.io
Sun Oct 15 12:23:57 CEST 2017
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud <chgans at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
> <jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
> You're all wrong."
> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no
> comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing.
> How many people had the same reaction when clang started?
> Nowadays, clang is actually far superior to gcc, it brought tooling
> like we would never have dared to dream of .
> Same goes with SVN vs git, now (almost) everyone have given up with SVN.
> SVN was "CVS in better", git is a completely different approach to
> SCM, SVN is now a zombie.
> "Not reinventing the wheel" has to be balanced with "innovation".
> IMHO, Qbs' great potential is the "completely new approach".
> Qbs would be a failed attempt if it was "CMake&autohell in better".
> I think it's worth thinking about that, and be critical instead of
> being blind nay-sayer.
>>> a complete CMake build for Qt was already contributed upstream (quite some
>>> time ago) .. and rejected ..
> It would be interesting to know why. Oswald said "we (...) are
> strongly biased against a
> cmake-based solution", but didn't give any reason/justification (Or I
> missed it).
> Did this CMake port cover all the features provided by qmake?
> Did this CMake port provide all the configuration needed by Qt, on all
> the supported platform?
> Could the Qt CI switch to CMake then?
> And what about this "Nominating Kevin Funk for Maintainer qtbase/Build
> Systems/CMake" thread?
> Will Kevin Funk (aka. "The CMake guy" according to Sergio) be fair
> when it comes to evaluating new build systems for Qt? or is it an
> hijack attempt, an insider infiltration?
> Or is it pure timing coincidence, and Kevin Funk is actually a "build
> system*s* guy"?
As I said in my QtWS talk, we recognize that people must be given a choice of build system for their own projects, and for that reason we will continue to support and provide CMake modules for Qt libraries.
Since Kevin's been doing the work of maintaining these modules anyways, it makes sense that he officially be labeled Maintainer. Ossi is still chief maintainer of build systems generally, Kevin is simply being nominated as a sub-maintainer for the CMake build systems area just as I am a sub-maintainer of the Apple Platforms (macOS/iOS) build systems area. This has nothing to do with Qbs or Qt's use of it.
André actually asked me if I was OK with him nominating Kevin, given my role in driving Qbs, which of course I am for the above stated reasons. :)
> I have no power of decision, so i will accept any.
> Nonetheless, I think it would be a mistake to choose a build system
> over the other because "I love Xyz, Xyz is the only way. You're all
> Who knows, maybe the answer to "Which new build system for Qt" could
> be neither CMake, neither Qbs.
We've already decided internally that we want to push Qbs as the new build tool, and I have no doubt that the community will agree.
> My 2 cents,
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
Jake Petroules - jake.petroules at qt.io
The Qt Company - Silicon Valley
Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io
More information about the Development