[Development] Future of QBS

Konstantin Tokarev annulen at yandex.ru
Mon Oct 16 13:12:49 CEST 2017

16.10.2017, 13:59, "Konstantin Tokarev" <annulen at yandex.ru>:
> 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

Going further: as far as I understand, "battle of build systems" is not at all about
who has better user experience or more sound design, it's about ability to push your
system to the market (agressive promotion and consulting services).

>>  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
> --
> Regards,
> Konstantin
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


More information about the Development mailing list