Yes, it's a big requirement for a lot of people using OFX that they be
able to use also Xcode and / or Visual Studio. But QBS was at some point
(not sure if still the case) the main one.
On 30/10/2018 22:25, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
Huh? Looks like they are supporting every build system alive
https://github.com/openframeworks/openFrameworks/tree/patch-release/libs/openFrameworksCompiled/project
30 окт. 2018 г., в 22:14, Jean-Michaël Celerier
<jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com
<mailto:jeanmichael.celer...@gmail.com>> написал(а):
OpenFrameworks, a fairly used creative coding framework has been
using QBS for a few years. My experience with it in that context has
been quite negative - a year ago it would break on every new QBS
release, so you had to use an exact QBS version if you wanted to use
OFX (exhibit A:
https://forum.openframeworks.cc/t/qtcreator-v4-3-1-qbs-problem/27214),
so multiple people I know have ended up porting OF to use CMake
instead : https://github.com/ofnode/of which frankly worked better
and with less breakage. As always, mileage may vary.
-------
Jean-Michaël Celerier
http://www.jcelerier.name <http://www.jcelerier.name/>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:07 PM Thiago Macieira
<thiago.macie...@intel.com <mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 13:47:00 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:53:48PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 12:29:46 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> > > 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".
>
> you're essentially presuming that qbs is developed by a potentially
> incompetent external entity.
No. However, I am asking for proof.
> > Show me that the tool can achieve what Qt needs for it to achieve
>
> qtbase//wip/qbs2 speaks for itself.
That's the guinea pig. I am asking for proof by seeing someone
else adopt it.
The tool is now several years old, it ought to have attracted
*someone*.
And even if it hasn't, there are a couple of years left until we
switch for
Qt. The community supporting this tool can find other projects of
moderate
complexity to work with and support.
> > and has enough of a track record of a community to ask for help.
>
> it has enough "community" and intrinsic quality to get things
going.
I'm not disputing it has quality. But it lacks a specific
community I called
for: packagers.
Tell me, has anyone tried to build that branch in the Boot2Qt
context?
> asking for more is completely unreasonable before the community
from
> which the tool originates shows committment by *relying* on it.
and as
> the current situation shows, everyone who didn't trust the
story was
> *right*.
I disagree and I find it completely reasonable to ask. That's why
I did so.
And yes, they were right: if qbs is created for Qt alone, then
they shouldn't
rely on it. Hence the request to show that it can be used by
others and that
there's at least a modest community behind it.
There has been enough time to get more adoption and there's still
time left.
So get someone else to adopt it.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com <http://intel.com/>
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org <mailto:Development@qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org <mailto: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
