Tobias Hunger wrote: > I am still missing a comparison of qbs and *current* build system options. > All I see is qbs vs. qmake and qbs vs. cmake 2.x. Neither qmake nor cmake > is what qbs will be competing with by the time it is ready to be used in > earnest. > > So far we excluded most possible build systems on the grounds that they do > not support the mixed host/target builds we do. That requirement is going > away. So we have more options now. Just to name two: Bazel promises great > scalability and reliability, meson claims to be simple and fast. Even > CMake made a lot of progress since version 2.x.
This is the first time I hear of Bazel, so it cannot be that popular. The fact that it is written in Java also makes it a poor fit for Qt, as it would make Qt depend on the huge Java stack to build. Meson is, as far as I can tell (I had already looked at it a couple times), mostly a CMake clone written in Python. I fail to see how it is conceptually any different from (let alone better than) CMake. It is mainly pushed by GNOME developers who are fed up of stone-age autotools, but apparently do not want to use the same thing KDE uses (CMake) just because KDE uses it. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development