[Development] Proposing CMake as build tool for Qt 6

[Thiago Macieira]

On Saturday, 15 June 2019 12:22:34 PDT Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote:
> > Why must they be built in one go? Why can't they be separate builds
> > stitched together? Or even completely separate builds as on Linux and all
> > the other Unix?
> 
>   Because qmake can build them in one go and last but not least is very
> convenient. Because a "new" buildsystem should do more than the existing
> one, not less :).

That only means a "nice to have", not "must have", feature. Sure it's 
convenient, but how often do you really need both and can't simply build 
twice? My Windows build is slow enough as is[*], I'd probably welcome the 
separation.

Note: with qmake's NMake generator, you *can* type "make debug" and it'll only 
compile the debug sub-targets. That doesn't work with the Unix Makefile one, 
so it won't work for macOS.

[* because I build on my IT-provided dual-core laptop, which comes loaded with 
IT-provided virus scanners, data-loss prevention tools, etc.]

> > But it has the most support base and the most experience out there, which
> > was ostensibly the reason I posted. If users and packagers have problems,
> > the pool of people who can help is much bigger.
> 
>   IMHO "the most support base and the most experience out there" it's just
> an appearance, or at least all these "support" and "experience" doesn't
> apply to Qt,

Sorry, I disagree. There being more users, more posts on StackOverflow, more. 
I projects using it is not an appearance. It's a fact. Usually, that has a 
strong correlation with quality and the ability to obtain help.

> I'll reiterate a few examples :
>  - no PCH (in decades)
>  - no iOS (it seems we need to wait for 3.15 to have *some* support, let's
> not forget that iOS it's over a decade old)
>  - no multi ABIs builds in one go (needed for msvc and useful also for
> Android).

I'm not claiming those existed or discounting the value of having those. And 
in the case of iOS builds, the absolute necessity thereof, before 6.0 is out.

What I'm saying is that once we've got all the necessary pieces and we're 
trying to build it, we will still have problems and my post was about ensuring 
we had a robust enough tool and community to help us out. We will have 
problems, whichever tool it is. My objective was to figure out how to solve 
them afterwards.

Granted, the iOS support being so new to the tool does not inspire 
confidence...

>   My *hunch* is that 3.15 won't be enough to build all Qt platforms and
> we'll probably needs to wait a little bit more. IMHO cmake superiority it's
> just a myth, because, obviously, in *this moment* qmake is a superior
> buildsystem *for Qt*.

Again, my post was not about technical superiority. It was about community and 
robustness.

>   Again, I want to highlight the fact that I don't want to change TQC
> decision regarding Qt6 and CMake, my comments are only for the sake of the
> truth.

And I will point out that this is not a TQtC decision, but a Qt Project 
decision, although heavily influenced by the TQtC developers supporting the 
company's position and that company's decision to cut development of the other 
contender solution.

BTW, the Meson developers contacted me after I posted my email last time and 
asked if we were willing to investigate changing to it. But they didn't offer 
and I didn't see anyone else stepping up to help us in the actual migration.
-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products