[Development] Proposing CMake as build tool for Qt 6

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 17:17:04 CEST 2019


On 17/06/2019 08.44, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Also, are you trying to say that cmake's configuration system is
> more user friendly than Qt's configure

Yes. Very much so.

> (or for, that matter, autotool's configure or similar things in sane
> build systems)?
Yes. Very much so.

> All of the latter provide a set of documented options with
> human-oriented names,

CMake's options are also documented. (Or, at least, they should be. If
they aren't, that's the fault of the project author(s), though, not
CMake. Similarly, I'm sure you can neglect to document autotools options.)

The difference is that autotools just spits out a great block of text at
me. With ccmake / cmake-gui, I can *interactively* putter around the
available options. And I don't have to copy/paste to turn things on, or
worry if I need to remember to run configure with the same arguments
every time, or...

> [...] which exposes internal variable names as they are.

Again, poor naming is not CMake's fault. I'm sure you can give autotools
config options very poor names also.

Having recently tried to build Qt myself for the first time, I very,
very much miss having something like ccmake...

-- 
Matthew


More information about the Development mailing list