On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 12:29:46 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:01:59PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > The requirement was not of the tool to be packaged. > > > > It was of one similar-complexity package *using* the buildsystem to be > > packaged for 2 years. > > err, right. > > but quite frankly, i call foul on that one and some other items in your > list. you had some frustrations as a packager, but that's just part of > the job, and doesn't authorize you to impose requirements that make it > basically impossible to employ qt as a bootstrapping device for a qbs > ecosystem.
The whole point was "let Qt not be the guinea pig". Show me that the tool can achieve what Qt needs for it to achieve and has enough of a track record of a community to ask for help. The requirements I outlined were about making that requirement more objective. The Qt community can of course disagree with me. The only enforcement I have is on myself: I said I will not work on Qt if it switches to a different build system until it meet my requirements. The 2-year-track record is included in that. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
