On 15 October 2017 at 23:23, Jake Petroules <jake.petrou...@qt.io> wrote: > > >> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud <chg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier >> <jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread) >>> >>> https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8 >> >> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way. >> You're all wrong." >> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no >> comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing. >> >> How many people had the same reaction when clang started? >> Nowadays, clang is actually far superior to gcc, it brought tooling >> like we would never have dared to dream of . >> >> Same goes with SVN vs git, now (almost) everyone have given up with SVN. >> SVN was "CVS in better", git is a completely different approach to >> SCM, SVN is now a zombie. >> >> "Not reinventing the wheel" has to be balanced with "innovation". >> >> IMHO, Qbs' great potential is the "completely new approach". >> Qbs would be a failed attempt if it was "CMake&autohell in better". >> >> I think it's worth thinking about that, and be critical instead of >> being blind nay-sayer. >> >>>> a complete CMake build for Qt was already contributed upstream (quite some >>>> time ago) .. and rejected .. >> >> It would be interesting to know why. Oswald said "we (...) are >> strongly biased against a >> cmake-based solution", but didn't give any reason/justification (Or I >> missed it). >> >> Did this CMake port cover all the features provided by qmake? >> Did this CMake port provide all the configuration needed by Qt, on all >> the supported platform? >> Could the Qt CI switch to CMake then? >> >> And what about this "Nominating Kevin Funk for Maintainer qtbase/Build >> Systems/CMake" thread? >> Will Kevin Funk (aka. "The CMake guy" according to Sergio) be fair >> when it comes to evaluating new build systems for Qt? or is it an >> hijack attempt, an insider infiltration? >> Or is it pure timing coincidence, and Kevin Funk is actually a "build >> system*s* guy"? > > As I said in my QtWS talk, we recognize that people must be given a choice of > build system for their own projects, and for that reason we will continue to > support and provide CMake modules for Qt libraries. > > Since Kevin's been doing the work of maintaining these modules anyways, it > makes sense that he officially be labeled Maintainer. Ossi is still chief > maintainer of build systems generally, Kevin is simply being nominated as a > sub-maintainer for the CMake build systems area just as I am a sub-maintainer > of the Apple Platforms (macOS/iOS) build systems area. This has nothing to > do with Qbs or Qt's use of it. > > André actually asked me if I was OK with him nominating Kevin, given my role > in driving Qbs, which of course I am for the above stated reasons. :)
Cool, glad to hear everything went smoothly. I didn't realise the issue about internal build system in use vs exported build system support. +1 for Kevin! ;) >> I have no power of decision, so i will accept any. >> >> Nonetheless, I think it would be a mistake to choose a build system >> over the other because "I love Xyz, Xyz is the only way. You're all >> wrong." >> >> Who knows, maybe the answer to "Which new build system for Qt" could >> be neither CMake, neither Qbs. > > We've already decided internally that we want to push Qbs as the new build > tool, and I have no doubt that the community will agree. I hope you all the best, please get rid of qmake. qmake is a real pain, and it gets even worth when cross-compiling. It's leaking everywhere, even QtCreator suffers from that. Chris _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
