[Qbs] Building Qbs for conan/bintray on Gitlab
richard at weickelt.de
Sun Mar 29 18:34:43 CEST 2020
> Oh. Interesting. I did not saw that the plugins are not compiled. But I
> don't know why. If you look into conanfile.py it just calls
> qmake -r qbs/qbs.pro <http://qbs.pro> CONFIG+=qbs_no_dev_install
> CONFIG+=qbs_no_man_install CONFIG+=qbs_use_bundled_qtscript
> Followed by a simple
> make -j1 // tools.cpu_count() will return 1 since every container just
> get 1 core assigned by gitlab.com <http://gitlab.com> gitlab-ci
> So something has to be wrong with the generated Makefiles? Should I try
> to archive the generated Makefiles for further analysis?
I am not looking forward to reading makefiles. It is a bit strange that this
cannot be reproduced locally, even with Docker. Does it work when building
against a dynamically linked Qt installation? Note that we can bundle Qt
together with Qbs, but only when building Qbs with Qbs.
I am looking into publishing prebuilt executables for all platforms for Qbs
1.16.0, at least as tarballs/zips. So one fall-back option might be to just
download this and package it up for Conan, just like what they do with CMake
and other tools.
> Yes, I would contribute maintain a Qbs Conan package. But if it should be
> an "official" Qbs Conan Package I would like to get some constraints
> like: where to host the packaging code; how to name the bintray etc.
Looks like bincrafters conventions are:
- open a ticket with a package request (refer to
- recipe in a repo "conan-PACKAGE" (https://github.com/bincrafters)
- specific repository layout with conanfile.py and data yml files for
Package name "Qbs" or "qbs" should be fine.
Would be great to have it there. This should make it very easy to get the
package to conan-center.
More information about the Qbs