[Qt-creator] Remote Linux plugin and CMake

[Stephen Kelly]

André Pönitz wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> André Pönitz wrote:
>> 
>> >> This is needlessly and deliberately crippling the user experience with
>> >> CMake.
>> >>
>> >> You should reconsider.
>> > 
>> > Where is the patch from the CMake community?
>> 
>> This is a poor deflection of an excuse for doing the wrong thing.
> 
> Not really. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Again, just deflecting attention away from doing the wrong thing.

> I have the choice between supporting an existing patch that comes from a
> CMake user which is declared by him as "serving the purpose" and
> supporting an approach that does not have a patch

A superior approach which will serve more than one user. It will instead 
serve all CMake users.

> , and for which I rate the chance of showing up at all at about zero.

Why is your expectation so low?

Why do you think I'm on this mailing list and this thread.

Why do you think I keep asking Tobias Hunger about his build configuration 
patches? He recommended a few weeks ago that I wait for them before diving 
into the CMake related code in creator.
 
> It has been pointed out that both approaches can be implemented, and
> can co-exist.

That is not correct. They can not co-exist. What is installed by running 
make install may not be the same as what is in the deployment file. You 
would have to have UI to allow the user to configure which one is 
authoritive.

That's just more bad user experience.

> So if the "official" CMake community wants their opinions
> reflected in the code they are heartily invited, at any time.

Twice previously I pointed out the problem that installing is the only way 
to get the correct answer, and I pointed out why:

 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.creator/8995/focus=9008
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.creator/8995/focus=8997

There was no acceptance of the problem statement I presented and no 
acceptance that it's the only workable solution.

Yes, I can implement it. I thought my recommended approach was already 
rejected. Please be more clear about that. Or maybe I need to wait for 
Daniels decision?

Thanks,

Steve.