On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:44:43 +1300 Christian Gagneraud <chg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. So what *are* you using now? Just curious. Christian _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development