Il giorno mar 30 ott 2018 alle ore 09:59 Olivier Goffart <oliv...@woboq.com> ha scritto:
> On 10/30/18 6:29 AM, resurrect...@centrum.cz wrote: > > Honestly I feel very disappointed as well with this decision. I feel > similarly > > to others, Qbs is now being phased out so fast (half a year of > development, > > another half a year of maintanance after that it seems). So better get > to > > porting stuff to CMake right away. Having experience with CMake this is > gonna > > be very ugly... > > > > What I do not understand is why the decision was qmake + cmake in the > first > > place. Why not Qbs + CMake? Was not the qmake deemed unmaintainable? It > is > > perfectly understandable to tap into wide CMake user base but why > ditching Qbs > > and not qmake? I wouldn't expect people would mourn qmake... > > This is not about "qmake + cmake" vs. anything. > > Qbs did not disappear from one day to the other. > What Lars said, if I read the email properly, is that the Qt Company does > not > see a business value in developing it further. > But the project is open source and the code is there and anyone is free to > take > over if they are interested in it. > We all know that without company support, the project will stagnate. > And Qbs does not have to build Qt for you to use it. > No but it would have been a great indicator of confidence on the project and help its adoption because it would have been much more noticeable than QtCreator (not all Qt users and developers build QtCreator but a lot of them do build Qt). The main problem here is not that Qt will use CMake, the problem is that Qbs will no longer be maintained. Given that qmake is not suitable for large projects, Qbs will not be developed anymore we can expect only CMake support on QtCreator to improve, therefore a lot of us will need to migrate to CMake. -- https://liri.io
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
