[Development] Future of QBS

Kevin Funk kevin.funk at kdab.com
Wed Oct 18 10:35:09 CEST 2017

On Monday, 16 October 2017 22:48:06 CEST Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> 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-Michaƫl 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.


I'm usually not the guy trying to derail from the original thread topic even 
further, but...

My comment wasn't meant to be offensive or disrespectful, but my point had to 
be made: You're original comment made a sweeping swipe against people who feel 
confident with CMake and diminished the work of people only trying to get Qt 
usable with tools which are industry standard and thus increase adoption.

It's rather your original mail which appeared disrespectful as it declared all 
my Qt/CMake contributions so far as part of an 'infiltrator' attempt.

> 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.

That's another strong charge.

Neither did I attack you, nor did I partially quote you. First of all, this is 
a public mailing list where everyone can read your original mail. Second, how 
am I supposed to quote you on a statement without putting my answer below the 
same. Also, I didn't cut off your mail in my reply either, the rest of your 
paragraph is still there. And last but not least, the 'Or ...' statement 
didn't actually disarm the former statement at all (for me).

> I think my questioning was legit, even if the style was far from perfect.

Right, let me excuse myself as well for the strong wording.

Let's calm down, go back to topic and have a beer together on the next QtWS.


> Anyway, now I know the answer thanks to people's responses.
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Kevin Funk | kevin.funk at kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5322 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20171018/66192587/attachment.bin>

More information about the Development mailing list