[Development] Build system for Qt 6

[NIkolai Marchenko]

> I'm not disputing it has quality. But it lacks a specific community I
called
for: packagers.

Maybe, but then, you've spent quite some time developing the system ,what's
stopping you from reaching out to suitable projects that involve packaging
to help them set up their project with QBS?
Instead of stating your desire to pull the plug and basically discouraging
such a community from ever appearing.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:07 AM Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 13:47:00 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:53:48PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 12:29:46 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > > doesn't authorize you to impose requirements that make it basically
> > > > impossible to employ qt as a bootstrapping device for a qbs
> > > > ecosystem.
> > >
> > > The whole point was "let Qt not be the guinea pig".
> >
> > you're essentially presuming that qbs is developed by a potentially
> > incompetent external entity.
>
> No. However, I am asking for proof.
>
> > > Show me that the tool can achieve what Qt needs for it to achieve
> >
> > qtbase//wip/qbs2 speaks for itself.
>
> That's the guinea pig. I am asking for proof by seeing someone else adopt
> it.
> The tool is now several years old, it ought to have attracted *someone*.
>
> And even if it hasn't, there are a couple of years left until we switch
> for
> Qt. The community supporting this tool can find other projects of moderate
> complexity to work with and support.
>
> > > and has enough of a track record of a community to ask for help.
> >
> > it has enough "community" and intrinsic quality to get things going.
>
> I'm not disputing it has quality. But it lacks a specific community I
> called
> for: packagers.
>
> Tell me, has anyone tried to build that branch in the Boot2Qt context?
>
> > asking for more is completely unreasonable before the community from
> > which the tool originates shows committment by *relying* on it. and as
> > the current situation shows, everyone who didn't trust the story was
> > *right*.
>
> I disagree and I find it completely reasonable to ask. That's why I did so.
>
> And yes, they were right: if qbs is created for Qt alone, then they
> shouldn't
> rely on it. Hence the request to show that it can be used by others and
> that
> there's at least a modest community behind it.
>
> There has been enough time to get more adoption and there's still time
> left.
> So get someone else to adopt it.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181031/9f464f8c/attachment.html>