[Development] Future of QBS

Konstantin Tokarev annulen at yandex.ru
Mon Oct 16 12:59:20 CEST 2017

15.10.2017, 12:20, "Christian Gagneraud" <chgans at gmail.com>:
> 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)
>>  https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8
> 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".

It isn't new actually, there were many build systems with similar concepts before
Qbs existed, e.g. Tundra [1]. Problem is that such projects tend to be one-man 
shows and don't get wide adoption.

[1] https://github.com/deplinenoise/tundra/blob/master/doc/manual.asciidoc

> 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"?
> 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
> wrong."
> Who knows, maybe the answer to "Which new build system for Qt" could
> be neither CMake, neither Qbs.
> My 2 cents,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


More information about the Development mailing list