[Development] Build system for Qt 6

[Alexander Neundorf]

Hi,

On 2018 M12 15, Sat 14:49:16 CET Ray Donnelly wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 6:35 AM Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org wrote:
> > On 2018 M10 30, Tue 18:33:03 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> > > > Thus this investment would be at the expense of other things we’d like
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > > do, like improving our IDE, working on rearchitecting and cleaning up
> > > our
> > > core frameworks for Qt 6 or the design tooling we are currently
> > > investing
> > > into. The Qt Company believes that those other investments are more
> > > important for the future of Qt than our choice of build tool.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand. Will it not be a return on the investment when
> > > people
> > > use Qt "because their build tool is the best around" ?
> > > Project files are at the root of every project. There are all sorts of
> > 
> > good
> > 
> > > IDEs around but ppl mostly are forced to use CMAKE which no one seems to
> > > like.
> > 
> > I do like it :-P
> > CMake can generate not only Makefiles and ninja files, but also project
> > files for
> > IDEs (Visual Studio, XCode, Eclipse).
> > With the addition of "server mode" 2 or 3 years ago or so now also a tight
> > integration with IDEs is possible. I think QtCreator and/or KDevelop make
> > use
> > of this.
> > So, when using cmake the developer is free to chose whether he wants to
> > use
> > simply an editor and make/ninja, or a full IDE.
> 
> In my experience with cmake any non trivial implementation only tends to
> work with the generator(s) the developer tested against most recently.

Which features are not working for which generators ?
As far as I know the ASM support may not really be working with the Visual 
Studio generators. Is there more ?
IMO those are issues/bugs, and developers who want to use these generators 
should put some effort into getting this fixed.

Alex