Hi all,
a Qt5 Tool (as a copy of qt4.py) is listed in the ToolsIndex. I tested
it quite extensively under Linux with the Qt 5.0.1/2 release candidates
and got feedback from some people that it also works fine under Windows.
So we basically have Qt5 support already, I can't say anything about
OS/X though.
Both Qt Tools have manuals and tests, so they could be integrated to the
core without a lot of additional effort.
But we should do this for the right reasons only. If we all agree that
it's strategically important to have full Qt support in the core, on the
same level as gcc/msvc for example, I'd be okay with that.
What I wouldn't want is, that we pull them in just because it's
convenient for us (less work, less questions) and the user (less
struggle for finding and installing). I'd rather use the Qt modules to
drive the further development of the Tool subsystem, and even go as far
as pushing the current qt.py out of the core into an external Qt3 package.
This would definitely break some existing code, but it would also make a
clear statement in my opinion.
The ability to easily extend the build system by writing Builders and
Tools is an important feature in SCons, making it stand out from all
other competitors. So we should think about how we can improve the
current documentation and install/packaging processes (*), and putting
an emphasis on keeping as much build functionality external.
Best regards,
Dirk
(*): My idea for this would still be to compile a "contrib-tools"
package with the latest revisions from the Tools listed in the
ToolsIndex...registered at pypi perhaps.
On 14.04.2013 18:00, Brady Johnson wrote:
I am also in favor of incorporating a newer version of Qt into SCons.
It would be good to be backwards compatible with previous versions, if
possible. Or at the very least allow for multiple versions like: Qt5,
Qt4, Qt3, etc
Brady
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Gary Oberbrunner
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm in favor of standardizing (i.e. importing into SCons) a more
recent Qt tool. Qt3 is pretty ancient now.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Russel Winder
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Currently the qt tool is Qt3 and worse than useless because it
doesn't
say qt3 it says qt. Thanks to Dirk and co we have a qt4 tool
that works,
but it is not standard even though the Qt3 only qt tool is.
What about
Qt5?
I am prompted to ask now as someone was asking me about SCons
at ACCU
2013 and the issue of Qt support arose.
Thanks.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
<tel:%2B44%2020%207585%202200> voip:
sip:[email protected] <mailto:sip%[email protected]>
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
<tel:%2B44%207770%20465%20077> xmpp: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
<http://www.russel.org.uk> skype: russel_winder
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
--
Gary
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
