[Development] Future of QBS
chgans at gmail.com
Mon Oct 16 22:48:06 CEST 2017
On 16 October 2017 at 21:40, Kevin Funk <kevin.funk at kdab.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 October 2017 11:20:13 CEST Christian Gagneraud 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)
>> > 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".
>> 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?
> This little 'misunderstanding' has been clarified in sub-threads already, but
> I still need to chime in here...
> To paraphrase BogDan: 'What are you smoking?'
I find the original statement and your paraphrasing quite offensive,
disrespectful and absolutely useless.
There is no need for such things.
It's easy to quote a message partially and attack people.
You have omitted 'Or is it pure timing coincidence, and Kevin Funk is
actually a "build
system*s* guy"?' from your quote above.
I think my questioning was legit, even if the style was far from perfect.
Anyway, now I know the answer thanks to people's responses.
More information about the Development