[Development] Build system for Qt 6

Ray Donnelly mingw.android at gmail.com
Sun Dec 16 21:00:29 CET 2018


The

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 1:17 PM Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com
wrote:

> On Sunday, 16 December 2018 05:21:35 PST Ray Donnelly wrote:
> >  As I say it's "ok" for developers but not for
> > packagers.
>
> Which one is ok for packagers?
>
> In Clear Linux, we also have people who dislike CMake. They recommend only
> Autoconf and Meson.
>

I agree with that. I also like qbs and wish it had seen more adoption so
that people would be less nervous about it .. and that it was spun out from
requiring qt (or any heavy dependencies) so it could be built much earlier
in the stack. Still it hasn't and that's a shame. One thing I'll say in
cmake's defence (not that it needs any from me, it seems to have taken
over) is that I prefer it to bazel in most respects.

>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181216/78546917/attachment.html>


More information about the Development mailing list