On 31 July 2018 at 20:49, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > I know CMake meets these requirements, but it has other problems and the fact > that it currently does not build Qt. On that front, qbs is ahead. But qbs has > a shorter track record. Since we're not switching buildsystems in the next 2 > years, there's time for the proponents of qbs to take actions to achieve those > requirements above. > > In other words: get others to adopt the buildsystem before we switch Qt. Prove > that it can support Qt. > > I know switching Qt would gain it a big critical mass, the same way that KDE > switching to CMake in 2006 gave CMake an important boost [*]. But we're not > switching Qt just yet, so if you're saying the tool is ready, get others to > use it now.
This provoked a thought in me, a way to make qbs worth all its effort: make debugging a build so staggeringly ridiculously good that it becomes attractive to use it. I don't know what debugging builds done with python-based build systems is like, but debugging make-based builds is rather horrible. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development