[Development] Qt 6 buildsystem support requirements

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:33:43AM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 04:24, Jason Newton wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:30 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> On 2018-07-21 19:52, Jason Newton wrote:
> >>> I wanted to mention that this is on my mind alot for a few years days
> >>> as a user for a plethora of libraries.  My conclusion for the build
> >>> system with the brightest future is bazel [...]
> >>
> >> No. Just, *no*.
> >>
> >> Persistent build server? Java? No, thanks.
> > 
> > This is an option, you can keep it in a preference file, or you can
> > use it as a command line switch to not use this.
> 
> ...and how many naïve users that "just want to build Qt" are going to
> know about that?
> 
and why exactly would a user who doesn't care ... care?

> > As for java in the loop - this is a a build system, how much does it
> > matter with what it is written in if the implementation is good?
> 
> ...because Java is an *enormous* added dependency
>
the actual toolchain and external dependencies play in the same league.
... which is still dwarfed by the size of a single qt debug build.

> for something that *ought* to be light-weight.
> 
says *who*?

it's not that i *like* big dependencies, but there is a trade-off to be
made, and bazel is *by far* the most advanced build tool on the market
today when it comes to optimizing rebuilds of massive projects (esp.
when you have a homogeneous IT environment in your intranet). that might
not be the decisive factor when it comes to choosing a build tool for
qt, but blanket statements like yours don't exactly sound like rational
decision making.

if the spectre of bazel scares you, make your contribution to make sure
qbs makes the cut. ;)
https://www.qt.io/open-positions/software-engineer-build-systems for
that matter ...