On 30/10/2018 14.30, Edward Welbourne wrote: > Painful as [CMake's] syntax is (I've begun reviewing the work for it), it's > there, someone else is supporting it, and the expected time to the final > demise of qmake does look shorter than our other options.
FWIW, I don't think anyone is praising CMake's syntax. The problem is finding a *viable* (and that includes *backwards-compatible*) plan to do something about it. If anyone can figure that out, I suspect CMake would be, ah, "highly receptive" :-). (I happen to think CMake is *overly* vilified, but I'm not going to claim it's free of warts, either.) -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
