[Development] Build system for Qt 6

[Denis Shienkov]

 > I work in the Anaconda Distribution as a software packager and spend 
a significant amount of my working day battling cmake.

As we all can see, the CMake loses even QBS. We need to spent a tens of 
hours/days to find out the solution, using CMake's , but with QBS same 
issue solves for 30 mins or work immediatelly.  Its very funny.

 > As I say it's "ok" for developers but not for packagers.

Neh.. No, it also is not 'ok' for developers too. :)



16.12.2018 16:21, Ray Donnelly пишет:
> I'll not going to do this for you, sorry. I also pointed out the lack 
> of isolation from system libraries by default as a major problem.
>
> Take any complex project and try it. Basically very few will work on 
> all generators. In particular ide generators cannot express complex 
> build dependencies very well and any use of scripts will tend not to 
> work unless you hardcore them for each one. I'm not in a position to 
> investigate this. I just want build tools to get out of my way. I work 
> in the Anaconda Distribution as a software packager and spend a 
> significant amount of my working day battling cmake. As I say it's 
> "ok" for developers but not for packagers.
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 6:05 AM Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org 
> <mailto:neundorf at kde.org> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20181216/87726a8a/attachment.html>