> AppVeyor supports Linux, but they support Dot Net on Linux, which isn't > interesting. Travis does not support Windows (or didn't, last I checked). > That means I need both to have the two to support three OSes.
Travis supports Windows. The machines are not fast, but it is usually enough. > > GitHub Actions didn't exist until last November. But it doesn't help > right now because their Windows support does not come with Qt > pre-installed, like AppVeyor's does. Building Qt, even if just a minimal > QtCore and QtTest, just to unit-test TinyCBOR, is out of the question. > Did you also read the part where I already spend half my yearly > allocation of TinyCBOR just to maintain the .travis.yml file? Note how > that's using apt-get to install Stephan Binner's builds of Qt for Ubuntu > on Linux and Homebrew on Mac. Imagine having to *build* Qt, on Windows. FWIW: We use Travis to build and test Qbs on all 3 major platforms and the maintenance does not require much effort. https://code.qt.io/cgit/qbs/qbs.git/tree/.travis.yml However, important features like sharing artifacts between stages are still missing and reinstalling all dependencies every time is not always 100% reliable. Although Travis is less popular these days, their UI is still the tidiest I have seen and their open source offering (5 parallel executors) is still very generous. AppVeyor recently started advertising that VM images can be customized. I have not tried it. > That's why I asked last month (and still have no official reply) on how > the Qt Company suggests we use Qt in public CIs, if the binary build is > locked to Qt Accounts. Do you seriously expect to get a reply? Are you a paying customer? Richard _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
