[Development] Future of QBS
xbenlau at gmail.com
Sun Oct 15 19:23:51 CEST 2017
On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov <denis.shienkov at gmail.com>
> Hi all, my 5-cents:
> QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated.
I am still new to QBS, but I think it is better than CMake too. However, I
think it has missed a critical feature - A simple way to run custom script.
For example, run a script to call external command (not a product by your
application) to deploy your application to App Store or simply upload to a
Currently it is quite difficult to do it via qbs, so it will still need a
platform depended script system.
Just my 2 cents
> QBS needs still in BinaryFiles support (e.g. to allow todo patching, merge
> for some output
> files using custom algorithms), better QtC integration (e.g. with Android
> && iOS).
> In other things QBS is very flexible, e.g. I have used it for creation of
> some application's
> Installers (for Windows), packing to archives, adding of additional rules
> for creating of HEX,
> MAP and so forth 'post build' things, and more more others (include
> compiling a projects
> for bare-metal architectures, e.g. AVR and so on). I don't know is it
> possible to do it with
> CMake with same as it simple in QBS (because CMake it is hell, IMHO).
> Besides, AFAIK, Qt has the wip/qbs branch, where it builds with QBS
> instead of qmake.
> 2017-10-13 18:30 GMT+03:00 Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen at qt.io>:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:19:51PM +0100, Sergio Martins wrote:
>> > On 2017-10-13 16:12, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > > On Friday, 13 October 2017 07:56:47 PDT Sergio Martins wrote:
>> > >> IMHO the qt-project is not in a position to reject Qt building with
>> > >> qbs, simply because there's no other implementation, nobody is
>> > >> going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread).
>> > >
>> > > There are volunteers to do that. They just need to know when they
>> > > could start doing the work to make a proof of concept.
>> > Good to know Thiago. I'd say they should ask on the mailing lists
>> > instead of waiting.
>> it already has been. we (the current maintianers of the qt build system,
>> and really anyone with a grain of taste) are strongly biased against a
>> cmake-based solution. in fact, we have rejected a cmake-based port of qt
>> creator some years ago.
>> ps: there is a qbs-specific mailing list (this is specifically not
>> applicable to the above topic, but that's just a tangent to start with).
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development