On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 17:53, Ray Donnelly wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 10:36 PM Richard Weickelt > The discussion about build systems reminds me a bit of a religious war. I
>> made my peace with CMake and use it only when being paid for. It allows me
>> to use the browser more often and to find
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 18:38, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 16 December 2018 20:12:47 PST Richard Weickelt wrote:
> > ... and if you cross-compile, you definetly don't want to your build system
> > to stick its nose into your system librararies on any platform.
>
> No, you really DO. The i
On Sunday, 16 December 2018 20:12:47 PST Richard Weickelt wrote:
> ... and if you cross-compile, you definetly don't want to your build system
> to stick its nose into your system librararies on any platform.
No, you really DO. The issue is what "system" is: it's the sysroot for your
target platf
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 10:36 PM Richard Weickelt
> > Here in Fedora, we actually *want* CMake to find system libraries. The
> > situation on Windows is of course different, and third-party packages
> for
> > GNU/Linux may or may not want to use the system libraries, but our
> > distribution package
> Here in Fedora, we actually *want* CMake to find system libraries. The
> situation on Windows is of course different, and third-party packages for
> GNU/Linux may or may not want to use the system libraries, but our
> distribution packages definitely want to use them.
... and if you cross-co
On Sunday, 16 December 2018 12:00:29 PST Ray Donnelly wrote:
> it seems to have taken
> over) is that I prefer it to bazel in most respects.
Bazel and gyp are in the list of systems packagers positively hate in our
case.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect -
On Sunday, 16 December 2018 13:47:36 PST Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> I also don't mind having moc6 etc. directly in bin/, instead of being hidden
> in libexec. Well, I actually prefer if they are in bin/, because there they
> are easy to find an run, and sometimes that's necessary during developmen
Ray Donnelly wrote (NOTE: I reordered the quotes so that my replies can be
read in order):
> 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.
I'm a packager for
On 2018 M11 14, Wed 03:43:03 CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > But I've just remembered that Designer loads plugins and those are quite
> > clearly tied to the Qt version. The file format is backwards compatible
> > and has remained so for a few years. It is possible that the plu
On 2018 M12 16, Sun 07:21:35 CET Ray Donnelly wrote:
> 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.
just to make sure we are talking about the same: basically you are saying that
the Visual Studio generat
The
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 1:17 PM Thiago Macieira 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
> Auto
On 12/16/2018 08:05 PM, Thiago Macieira 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?
From packaging standpoint, autotools are clearly the best. But I would
say cmake is ok for 2n
On Sunday, 16 December 2018 09:00:29 PST Denis Shienkov wrote:
> 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.
Then by all means cont
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.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) int
> 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
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 w
Hi,
On 2018 M12 15, Sat 14:49:16 CET Ray Donnelly wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 6:35 AM Alexander Neundorf > 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,
17 matches
Mail list logo
