[Development] Build system for Qt 6

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:07:16PM -0700, Thiago Macieira 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.
> 
you may obtain it yourself when you distrust your own community so much.

> > > 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. 
>
you aren't asking for "achievements", but for a perfect guarantee of
unproblematic deployment. that's quite frankly absurd.

> The tool is now several years old, it ought to have attracted
> *someone*.
> 
almost everyone who even looked at it did the right thing: distrust the
entity behind it, because it's not showing committment. this is the
message we have been hearing again and again, most of all from within
the company.

> 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.
> 
that's nonsense. the decision is happening *now* (in as far as it isn't
a done deal already). the cmake port is getting all the instant
committment and push from lars that he never managed to give to qbs.
there isn't going to be a time after cmake.

> > > 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.
> 
that community has always managed, and it sure would with qbs (in as far
as it didn't already). it's not rocket science.

> Tell me, has anyone tried to build that branch in the Boot2Qt context?
> 
that seems unlikely. our QA is constantly overloaded, and certainly
doesn't want to priorize something that clearly isn't taken seriously
by parts of the company, most of all management.
however, that *would* change if there was an *actual* decision in favor
of qbs.

> > asking for more is completely unreasonable before the community from
> > which the tool originates shows committment by *relying* on it.
> 
> I disagree and I find it completely reasonable to ask. That's why I
> did so.
> 
that attitude is totally selfish and remarkably disrespectful towards
parts of your own community. it clearly shows that you don't consider
qbs part of our own dog food.

> 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.
> 
this thread has show beyond a reasonable doubt that there *is* a
"modest" community behind it.