The On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 1:17 PM Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 December 2018 05:21:35 PST Ray Donnelly wrote: > > As I say it's "ok" for developers but not for > > packagers. > > Which one is ok for packagers? > > In Clear Linux, we also have people who dislike CMake. They recommend only > Autoconf and Meson. > I agree with that. I also like qbs and wish it had seen more adoption so that people would be less nervous about it .. and that it was spun out from requiring qt (or any heavy dependencies) so it could be built much earlier in the stack. Still it hasn't and that's a shame. One thing I'll say in cmake's defence (not that it needs any from me, it seems to have taken over) is that I prefer it to bazel in most respects. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
