Qbs has by definition more features than cmake because it is a make tool.
I understand Qbs may have greater potential by design, but it has far less
features than CMake today. I refer features as ability to detect various
components, such as CUDA, OpenGL and support many platforms. However I
On 30.05.2014 23:59, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
Moreover it takes more to build qt-creator with Qbs (20min) than Qmake+make
(18min). Also it doesn't support precompiled headers, at least not for
qt-creator, where Qmake+make+PCH goes down to 9min.
Strange, I thought qbs improves build times.
On 19.05.2014 10:57, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 05:29:56PM +0200, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
Hello,
I wonder if there was any work done in regards of making Ninja Qmake
generator. From my experience Ninja vastly improves (re)build time.
I wonder if it would be hard to
Putting my 2¢ in, Qmake is IMHO good enough. Qbs is kind of vaporware, sparse
documentation, needs Qmake to build (woot?!).
Altogether it sounds like a clinch, we don't want to extent Qmake with ninja or
anything, because there comes Qbs. But Qbs isn't really there, because one
needs lot of
On May 29, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Adam Strzelecki o...@java.pl wrote:
Putting my 2¢ in, Qmake is IMHO good enough. Qbs is kind of vaporware, sparse
documentation, needs Qmake to build (woot?!).
Altogether it sounds like a clinch, we don't want to extent Qmake with ninja
or anything, because
On May 22, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Joerg Bornemann joerg.bornem...@digia.com wrote:
On 21-May-14 21:36, Kuba Ober wrote:
Bootstrapping is about the only possible glitch I see with Qt being built
with QBS.
I mean, good luck bootstrapping QML without Qt built. Or is that something
that wouldn’t
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:36:25PM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote:
Bootstrapping is about the only possible glitch I see with Qt being built
with QBS.
I mean, good luck bootstrapping QML without Qt built. Or is that something
that wouldn’t be that hard?
it's neither inherently hard, nor do i
On May 20, 2014, at 5:11 AM, Kalinowski Maurice maurice.kalinow...@digia.com
wrote:
What Ossi tries to say is that QBS takes a couple of different approaches.
You can find an old blog post describing the details here:
Thiago Macieira schreef op 19-5-2014 18:20:
Em seg 19 maio 2014, às 17:01:05, André Somers escreveu:
Adam Strzelecki schreef op 19-5-2014 12:38:
I would recommend using CMake - it has a stable Ninja generator, which
_does_ make building Qt projects much faster on Windows.
I wonder if can
Gesendet: Monday, 19 May, 2014 7:29 PM
An: development@qt-project.org
Betreff: Re: [Development] Qmake Ninja generator
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 01:22:54PM -0400, Taylor Braun-Jones wrote:
I wasn't around for this discussion,
so before you dig in yourself deeper, i suggest you actually
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 05:29:56PM +0200, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
Hello,
I wonder if there was any work done in regards of making Ninja Qmake
generator. From my experience Ninja vastly improves (re)build time.
I wonder if it would be hard to make such generator,
yes. you'd need to do
I would recommend using CMake - it has a stable Ninja generator, which
_does_ make building Qt projects much faster on Windows.
I wonder if can CMake build Qt SDK itself?
It is somehow parallel to Qmake, isn't it. If so, would it make sense to make
Qt to depreciate Qmake at some point in
and what about qbs? http://qt-project.org/wiki/qbs
Additionally, was it not supposed to replace QMake at some time?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Adam Strzelecki schreef op 19-5-2014 12:38:
I would recommend using CMake - it has a stable Ninja generator, which
_does_ make building Qt projects much faster on Windows.
I wonder if can CMake build Qt SDK itself?
It is somehow parallel to Qmake, isn't it. If so, would it make sense to make
Em seg 19 maio 2014, às 17:01:05, André Somers escreveu:
Adam Strzelecki schreef op 19-5-2014 12:38:
I would recommend using CMake - it has a stable Ninja generator, which
_does_ make building Qt projects much faster on Windows.
I wonder if can CMake build Qt SDK itself?
It is
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:01 AM, André Somers an...@familiesomers.nlwrote:
Adam Strzelecki schreef op 19-5-2014 12:38:
I would recommend using CMake - it has a stable Ninja generator, which
_does_ make building Qt projects much faster on Windows.
I wonder if can CMake build Qt SDK itself?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 01:22:54PM -0400, Taylor Braun-Jones wrote:
I wasn't around for this discussion,
so before you dig in yourself deeper, i suggest you actually read it.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
Hello,
I wonder if there was any work done in regards of making Ninja Qmake generator.
From my experience Ninja vastly improves (re)build time. I wonder if it would
be hard to make such generator, or if anyone tried to do it already.
Cheers,
--
Adam
18 matches
Mail list logo
