No one interested ?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:03 AM, iman ahmadvand
wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> Before I send some code base on codereview and decide whether my
> implementation meets the requirements, I just want to know your thoughts
> about design decision for the new
On 16 October 2017 at 15:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
>> You're all wrong."
>> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no
>> comparison, no argument
Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
> You're all wrong."
> This post doesn't explain anything, doesn't gives any analysis, no
> comparison, no argument whatsoever, nothing.
It makes one important point (and elaborates it to great
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The point of the ELF version was to help you the distributions detect
> which ones need rebuilding by having the symbol show up. Having the symbol
> rename all the time doesn't make the distro-building more robust, since
> the previous symbols would just disappear and new
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 02:20:13 PDT Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> How many people had the same reaction when clang started?
> Nowadays, clang is actually far superior to gcc, it brought tooling
> like we would never have dared to dream of .
Clang may be far superior to GCC in a lot of aspects.
On Sunday, 15 October 2017 03:23:57 PDT Jake Petroules wrote:
> We've already decided internally that we want to push Qbs as the new build
> tool, and I have no doubt that the community will agree.
I have no doubt the community agrees that you have the right to try.
Whether the community agrees
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Ben Lau wrote:
>
>
> On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov wrote:
> Hi all, my 5-cents:
>
> QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated. :)
>
>
> I am still new to QBS, but I
On 14 October 2017 at 00:55, Denis Shienkov
wrote:
> Hi all, my 5-cents:
>
> QBS is better (best best) than CMake, IMHO, as CMake is too complicated.
> :)
>
>
I am still new to QBS, but I think it is better than CMake too. However, I
think it has missed a critical
On 15 October 2017 at 23:23, Jake Petroules wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>>
>> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
>> wrote:
nobody is going to port Qt to CMake
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>
> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
> wrote:
>>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
>>
>>
On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier
wrote:
>> nobody is going to port Qt to CMake (if you disagree start a new thread)
>
> https://plus.google.com/+AaronSeigo/posts/fWAM9cJggc8
I would resume this post as "I love CMake, CMake is the only way.
You're
11 matches
Mail list logo