> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Ben Lau <xben...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov <denis.shien...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, my 5-cents: > > QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated. :) > > > I am still new to QBS, but I think it is better than CMake too. However, I > think it has missed a critical feature - A simple way to run custom script. > > For example, run a script to call external command (not a product by your > application) to deploy your application to App Store or simply upload to a > server. > > Currently it is quite difficult to do it via qbs, so it will still need a > platform depended script system.
This is already possible - just create a rule to do this, and put it in its own product (with builtByDefault:false). Then you can simply invoke your process via `qbs run -p my_script`. Perhaps this could be rationalized into a dedicated feature (there is something about "action targets" on JIRA) but it's not that hard to get something pretty close with today's qbs. > Just my 2 cents > > QBS needs still in BinaryFiles support (e.g. to allow todo patching, merge > for some output > files using custom algorithms), better QtC integration (e.g. with Android && > iOS). > > In other things QBS is very flexible, e.g. I have used it for creation of > some application's > Installers (for Windows), packing to archives, adding of additional rules for > creating of HEX, > MAP and so forth 'post build' things, and more more others (include compiling > a projects > for bare-metal architectures, e.g. AVR and so on). I don't know is it > possible to do it with > CMake with same as it simple in QBS (because CMake it is hell, IMHO). > > Besides, AFAIK, Qt has the wip/qbs branch, where it builds with QBS instead > of qmake. > > BR, > Denis > > 2017-10-13 18:30 GMT+03:00 Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenha...@qt.io>: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 04:19:51PM +0100, Sergio Martins wrote: > > On 2017-10-13 16:12, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > On Friday, 13 October 2017 07:56:47 PDT Sergio Martins wrote: > > >> IMHO the qt-project is not in a position to reject Qt building with > > >> qbs, simply because there's no other implementation, nobody is > > >> going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread). > > > > > > There are volunteers to do that. They just need to know when they > > > could start doing the work to make a proof of concept. > > > > Good to know Thiago. I'd say they should ask on the mailing lists > > instead of waiting. > > > it already has been. we (the current maintianers of the qt build system, > and really anyone with a grain of taste) are strongly biased against a > cmake-based solution. in fact, we have rejected a cmake-based port of qt > creator some years ago. > > ps: there is a qbs-specific mailing list (this is specifically not > applicable to the above topic, but that's just a tangent to start with). > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io The Qt Company - Silicon Valley Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
