[Development] Proposing CMake as build tool for Qt 6

Christian Gagneraud chgans at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 15:12:42 CEST 2019

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 00:27, Christian Gagneraud <chgans at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 23:06, Jean-Michaël Celerier
> <jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The world is not spinning around Qt, sorry for the bad news.
> >
> > On that we agree : https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2019/cpp/
> > I mean, I had actual CMake classes with a CMake exam on paper 6 years ago at the university -- you get a few hundreds of new devs on the job market every year out of that one, who *will* know CMake, and won't know qmake / qbs / [...].
> Are you insulting this mailing list?
> How do you think we made it so far without cmake? Honestly?
> The very fact you're discussing qmake and qbs just show that you know
> about them, and that you know what they provide cmake cannot provide
> (yet).
> > > I prefer a transparent self-bootstrapped Qt over an explicit two stages one.
> > I (entirely personnally) really do not, - this is anecdotally one of the main objections I've heard about Qt (3k questions just about Qt's configure in SO ! https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bqt%5D+configure) : not just answering to a standard cmake && make && make install which comes with gui discoverability through cmake-gui, embeddability through add_subdirectory or C++ package managers such as conan, vcpkg, hunter, etc etc. but instead acting like its own microcosm library where you have to learn yet another set of commands & invocations if you want to integrate it in your existing system.
> Woah, you're ass is so shinny i can't see the light.

Hi Jean-Michaël,
I would like to apologise about that one, frustration got me in.
That wasn't smart from me, I do respect everyone, even when I disagree
with them.
I didn't mean to insult you, please forgive me, that was a stupid behaviour.


More information about the Development mailing list