> I work in the Anaconda Distribution as a software packager and spend
a significant amount of my working day battling cmake.
As we all can see, the CMake loses even QBS. We need to spent a tens of
hours/days to find out the solution, using CMake's , but with QBS same
issue solves for 30 mins or work immediatelly. Its very funny.
> As I say it's "ok" for developers but not for packagers.
Neh.. No, it also is not 'ok' for developers too. :)
16.12.2018 16:21, Ray Donnelly пишет:
I'll not going to do this for you, sorry. I also pointed out the lack
of isolation from system libraries by default as a major problem.
Take any complex project and try it. Basically very few will work on
all generators. In particular ide generators cannot express complex
build dependencies very well and any use of scripts will tend not to
work unless you hardcore them for each one. I'm not in a position to
investigate this. I just want build tools to get out of my way. I work
in the Anaconda Distribution as a software packager and spend a
significant amount of my working day battling cmake. As I say it's
"ok" for developers but not for packagers.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 6:05 AM Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org
<mailto:neund...@kde.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 2018 M12 15, Sat 14:49:16 CET Ray Donnelly wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 6:35 AM Alexander Neundorf
<neund...@kde.org <mailto:neund...@kde.org> wrote:
> > On 2018 M10 30, Tue 18:33:03 CET NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> > > > Thus this investment would be at the expense of other
things we’d like
> >
> > to
> >
> > > do, like improving our IDE, working on rearchitecting and
cleaning up
> > > our
> > > core frameworks for Qt 6 or the design tooling we are currently
> > > investing
> > > into. The Qt Company believes that those other investments
are more
> > > important for the future of Qt than our choice of build tool.
> > >
> > > I don't understand. Will it not be a return on the
investment when
> > > people
> > > use Qt "because their build tool is the best around" ?
> > > Project files are at the root of every project. There are
all sorts of
> >
> > good
> >
> > > IDEs around but ppl mostly are forced to use CMAKE which no
one seems to
> > > like.
> >
> > I do like it :-P
> > CMake can generate not only Makefiles and ninja files, but
also project
> > files for
> > IDEs (Visual Studio, XCode, Eclipse).
> > With the addition of "server mode" 2 or 3 years ago or so now
also a tight
> > integration with IDEs is possible. I think QtCreator and/or
KDevelop make
> > use
> > of this.
> > So, when using cmake the developer is free to chose whether he
wants to
> > use
> > simply an editor and make/ninja, or a full IDE.
>
> In my experience with cmake any non trivial implementation only
tends to
> work with the generator(s) the developer tested against most
recently.
Which features are not working for which generators ?
As far as I know the ASM support may not really be working with
the Visual
Studio generators. Is there more ?
IMO those are issues/bugs, and developers who want to use these
generators
should put some effort into getting this fixed.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
