[Development] Qt 6 buildsystem support requirements

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Sun Jul 22 17:20:27 CEST 2018

On Sunday, 22 July 2018 03:57:37 PDT Иван Комиссаров wrote:
> That’s it. You pointing too much attention to the Linux distros and
> maintainers, which is very important, but you are using wrong arguments.
> Give those maintainers a good tool and they will be happy. And the «good
> tool» is not the same as «tool has been used for at least 2 years». People
> has been using plain makefiles for decades, people has been using autotools
> for years. But i guess anyone agrees that autotools sucks.

You're right, "good tool" does not mean "tool has been used for 2 years". Yet 
I stand by what I said: I want a good tool, but *need* experience. The point 
of 2 years is not to let them fight out to figure out which ones is best. The 
point is to make sure the kinks are ironed out and that people have dealt with 

Have they figured out how to do debugging when things go wrong? Autoconf 
produces a very detailed config.log; qmake does a similar one for qtbase, but 
has the -d -d options that almost always explain to me how things were wrong. 
CMake is a lot harder and I hate debugging it, but in the worst case I know 
there are people I can turn to for help. I want to say the same for the tool 
we choose.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Development mailing list