[Qt-creator] Remote Linux plugin and CMake

[Buddenhagen Oswald]

[crap mobile outlook client]

why would you parse any cmake output? You install to a temp dir (on a ram drive if you like) which you own. You can simply recursively list it. You can even calculate the delta yourself.

To be frank, i don't understand this shit response to steve. I solved this exact problem two years ago with a ridiculously short bash script for $secretNokiaProject. Re-implementing this in c++ would have taken less time than this discussion already took, not to mention the time wasted with the other approach and the subsequent hacks to make it less broken.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Hunger
Sent:  09.09.2013, 22:24
To: Stephen Kelly
Cc: qt-creator
Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Remote Linux plugin and CMake



Hi Stephen,

On Sep 9, 2013 9:27 PM, "Stephen Kelly" <steveire at gmail.com<mailto:steveire at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> André Pönitz wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:09:23PM +0200, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Not really. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
>
> Again, just deflecting attention away from doing the wrong thing.

I am with Andre here: Having something now is better than maybe getting something later. I am not doubting anybody commitment, it is just nice to have something to test things with.

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

Yep, right. But till we have that we can still serve one user:-)

> > 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.

I beg to differ: We support a range of different options for qmake and do not see why that should not work for cmake.

> 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?

My impression was that we will go with the current patch for now and see how things develop from there:-)

Quite frankly I hope there is a solution that does not involve creeping and parsing cmake output. Parsing is always fragile. Having cmake generate something is most likely more stable.

Best Regards ,
Tobias

PS: While talking about parsing: Qbs does produce great output for parsing the build output. Basically you get the file being worked on, the full command run and the output to stderr and stdout. That makes figuring out what any warning is about really easy. Can we get similar information from cmake?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-creator/attachments/20130917/78c87008/attachment.html>