As someone who works on a cross platform distribution let me tell you that cmake is plain terrible. How much custom c++ code does it contains for just qt? Loads, absolutely tonnes or rubbish.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 1:49 PM Jean-Michaël Celerier < jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a build system that fulfills all of Thiago's points, and it is > already widely used in the Qt community: CMake. > > +1, I was flabbergasted when the big objection against CMake in Qt 6 > boiled down to "it does not supports all the architectures that Qt > supports", so instead of contributing them - or hell, even forking CMake > for those specific architectures (what are them ? I use cmake for windows, > mac, linux, android, ios and the toolchain file allows for a lot of > customization), what, create a new build system from scratch that splits > the C++ community further ? There would be so much to gain with a better > relationship between Qt and CMake. > > Best, > ------- > Jean-Michaël Celerier > http://www.jcelerier.name > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> > wrote: > >> Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote: >> > Anyway IMHO is more important to have a clean, nice and easy to use >> syntax >> > and to be tooling friendly than 1.b. >> >> A custom build system is always a major pain point for distributions. A >> circular dependency (what Thiago's 1.b forbids) makes it particularly >> painful. How should we bootstrap new architectures or entirely new >> distributions if we cannot build Qt due to the circular dependency >> between >> Qt and its build tool? This is a showstopper. >> >> > GN[1] is another example of build system which didn't care too much >> about >> > 1.a,b,c and it still used in quite big projects (e.g. chrome, fuchsia). >> To >> > my huge surprise, they managed to move it into a separate repo and >> remove >> > all chromium dependencies (yep, a few months ago you had to checkout the >> > entire chromium repo to build it :) ). >> >> GN (and its predecessor Gyp) is universally hated by distribution >> packagers >> for its non-standardness, weirdness, lack of documentation (including >> third- >> party documentation such as tutorials, an issue inherent to custom build >> systems) and lack of flexibility (custom build systems are never as >> powerful >> as widely-used general-purpose build systems). >> >> QtWebEngine is a particular pain to package because it uses TWO custom >> build >> systems (QMake and GN). >> >> The Chromium mess is also what prompted Spot to write the list of FAILs >> [https://spot.livejournal.com/308370.html] I have already linked to >> elsewhere in this thread. >> >> >> There is a build system that fulfills all of Thiago's points, and it is >> already widely used in the Qt community: CMake. >> >> Kevin Kofler >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
