[QBS] state and future of qbs

[Jake Thomas Petroules]

BogDan - your suggestion regarding kits makes a lot of sense. It would also be nice to use the same terminology and a similar setup procedure, providing a nice seamless transition between Qt Creator and QBS. :)

I also had an idea regarding the ability to use multiple Qt versions in a single build tree - for example if you wanted to build a universal binary from 32-bit Carbon 4.6.4 gcc and 64-bit Cocoa 5.0.0 clang on Mac. There's no straightforward way to use two or more versions of Qt in a single build tree. I imagine the setup for doing so would be pretty awkward but perhaps a more general solution could be derived where a qbs build tree could depend on the outputs of other qbs build trees? The two "input" trees produce your two binaries, the third tree uses lipo to create a universal binary and package it into a dmg for the final product.

Yet another possibility could be the ability to apply profiles to individual Products rather than the Project as a whole. How would this potentially affect dependencies other than Qt?

Jörg - you mentioned "proper deployment support" as a goal for 0.3. By this are you referring to the equivalent of `make install`, or msi/dmg/deb/rpm/etc. packages?

Jake Petroules
Petroules Corporation (www.petroules.com)
Email: jake.petroules at petroules.com

On Jan 4, 2013, at 5:20 AM, BogDan <bog_dan_ro at yahoo.com> wrote:

>>  
> 
>> G ood news, everyone!
>> We got clearance to put some more work into qbs!
>> 
>> In the last weeks we cleaned up a lot, stabilized crucial parts, removed 
>> experimental code and enhanced the overall usability. The most visible 
>> changes are:
>> 
>> - There's only the file extension "qbs" now. The toplevel project 
>> doesn't have to be put in a "qbp" file anymore.
>> - The config command behaves sane.
>> - Wildcard support, thanks to Ruslan.
>> - Incremental builds are now as fast as promised.
>> 
>> We now switched our focus to milestone 0.3. The complete list of issues 
>> that have been resolved for 0.2 can be seen here:
>> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+QBS+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.2%22+AND+status+%3D+Resolved+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC
>> 
>> The most mentionable issues for 0.3 are:
>> - Qt Creator plugin.
>> - Proper deployment support.
>> - Fix ridiculously huge memory usage / performance penalty of loader.
>> 
>> The full list for 0.3 is here:
>> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+QBS+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%220.3%22+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC%2C+key+DESC
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Jörg
>> 
> 
> Hi Jörg,
> 
> This are indeed very good news. (Disclaimer: I'm (one of) the biggest fun of qbs :) ).
> I checked qbs a few days ago, when I tried to create a qbs plugin for KDevelop,
> and I think I've found an issue regarding platforms/profiles settings.
> It seems that platforms and profiles are independent from each other, but I think 
> profiles should be linked to  platforms(toolchanins). I can not use x86 qt to 
> compile arm apps !
> IMHO a better approach is to use something similar to QtCreator Kits, every
> kit will contain a single toolchain and one or more qt "profiles". 
> 
> Cheers,
> BogDan.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> QBS mailing list
> QBS at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qbs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qbs/attachments/20130104/f6ebe850/attachment.html>