Re: [Development] Other buildsystems

2011-11-02 Thread Frans Klaver
Hi, Just adding some more fuel to the fire. On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 14:42:28 Mathias Hasselmann wrote: >> I constantly see strong opinions against qmake, but actually that thing >> is not that bad as a build system[1]. It permi

Re: [Development] Other buildsystems

2011-11-02 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 14:42:28 Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > I constantly see strong opinions against qmake, but actually that thing > is not that bad as a build system[1]. It permits compact build scripts. > It is declarative (very important IMHO). It is extensible. I like qmake when

Re: [Development] Other buildsystems

2011-11-02 Thread Mathias Hasselmann
Am Mittwoch, den 02.11.2011, 12:13 + schrieb lars.kn...@nokia.com: > On 11/1/11 7:31 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira" > wrote: > > >On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 17:44:29 André Pönitz wrote: > >> A non-optional dependency on cmake for Qt 5.0 is not acceptable from my > >> perspective. > > > >Nor

Re: [Development] Other buildsystems

2011-11-02 Thread lars.knoll
On 11/1/11 7:31 PM, "ext Thiago Macieira" wrote: >On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 17:44:29 André Pönitz wrote: >> A non-optional dependency on cmake for Qt 5.0 is not acceptable from my >> perspective. > >Nor mine. > >Quoting André from IRC: a dependency on a buildsystem is acceptable if >and

[Development] Other buildsystems

2011-11-01 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 17:44:29 André Pönitz wrote: > A non-optional dependency on cmake for Qt 5.0 is not acceptable from my > perspective. Nor mine. Quoting André from IRC: a dependency on a buildsystem is acceptable if and only if it's the buildsystem that the codebase is built with