[Development] Qt 6 buildsystem support requirements

[Jean-Michaël Celerier]

> How much custom c++ code does it contains for just qt?

which build system which supports automatic calling of moc doesn't have
specific code for qt ?




-------
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Ray Donnelly <mingw.android at gmail.com>
wrote:

> As someone who works on a cross platform distribution let me tell you that
> cmake is plain terrible. How much custom c++ code does it contains for just
> qt? Loads, absolutely tonnes or rubbish.
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 1:49 PM Jean-Michaël Celerier <
> jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > There is a build system that fulfills all of Thiago's points, and it is
>> already widely used in the Qt community: CMake.
>>
>> +1, I was flabbergasted when the big objection against CMake in Qt 6
>> boiled down to "it does not supports all the architectures that Qt
>> supports", so instead of contributing them - or hell, even forking CMake
>> for those specific architectures (what are them ? I use cmake for windows,
>> mac, linux, android, ios and the toolchain file allows for a lot of
>> customization), what, create a new build system from scratch that splits
>> the C++ community further ? There would be so much to gain with a better
>> relationship between Qt and CMake.
>>
>> Best,
>> -------
>> Jean-Michaël Celerier
>> http://www.jcelerier.name
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote:
>>> > Anyway IMHO is more important to have a clean, nice and easy to use
>>> syntax
>>> > and to be tooling friendly than 1.b.
>>>
>>> A custom build system is always a major pain point for distributions. A
>>> circular dependency (what Thiago's 1.b forbids) makes it particularly
>>> painful. How should we bootstrap new architectures or entirely new
>>> distributions if we cannot build Qt due to the circular dependency
>>> between
>>> Qt and its build tool? This is a showstopper.
>>>
>>> > GN[1] is another example of build system which didn't care too much
>>> about
>>> > 1.a,b,c and it still used in quite big projects (e.g. chrome,
>>> fuchsia). To
>>> > my huge surprise, they managed to move it into a separate repo and
>>> remove
>>> > all chromium dependencies (yep, a few months ago you had to checkout
>>> the
>>> > entire chromium repo to build it :) ).
>>>
>>> GN (and its predecessor Gyp) is universally hated by distribution
>>> packagers
>>> for its non-standardness, weirdness, lack of documentation (including
>>> third-
>>> party documentation such as tutorials, an issue inherent to custom build
>>> systems) and lack of flexibility (custom build systems are never as
>>> powerful
>>> as widely-used general-purpose build systems).
>>>
>>> QtWebEngine is a particular pain to package because it uses TWO custom
>>> build
>>> systems (QMake and GN).
>>>
>>> The Chromium mess is also what prompted Spot to write the list of FAILs
>>> [https://spot.livejournal.com/308370.html] I have already linked to
>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a build system that fulfills all of Thiago's points, and it is
>>> already widely used in the Qt community: CMake.
>>>
>>>         Kevin Kofler
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Development mailing list
>>> Development at qt-project.org
>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20180721/700d2396/attachment.html>