On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 10:27, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 13:56:45 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote: > The only thing I'm criticising is that its proper chance involves Qt being the > guinea pig. Find someone else instead and grow your community. Get track > record for building, cross-compiling, working with weird set ups, > containerised build environments, build farms, etc. Don't ask Qt to switch to > it until you've done that work.
!?! What make you think qbs cannot be used in such environments?That all very basic stuff to me. - cross-compiling: Qbs support *out of the box* all "standard" OS *and* "standard" toolchains. - working with weird set ups: what does that even mean? That a very vague statement. - containerised build: any build system can run in a container, that's orthogonal. - build farms: Against what is the problem with build farm, i don't get it. - etc: again, can you elaborate? that's very vague. I've used Qbs to build a Desktop SW for Windows + MacOS + Linux, all producing platform specific installers. It was a breeze. I've used it to build a 1.5 million SLOC SW, with complex build matrix. The only reason we dropped it, was because of lack of integration: QtCreator is the only IDE that knows Qbs, as i reported on Qbs mailing long time ago, Qbs won't take off without XCode, Visual Stidio, Visual Code, Eclipse, ... integration. And, so far, we failed at switching to CMake, the build matrix is too complex. Chris _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
