Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Build System Should Qt 6 Use?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Build System Should Qt 6 Use?

    Phoronix: What Build System Should Qt 6 Use?

    While developers have begun discussing plans for Qt 6.0 with plans to ship this upgraded tool-kit in 2020, one of the unanswered questions is over what build system should Qt 6 be using...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...t-Build-System

  • #2
    Does Qt really need an own build system such as Qmake or Qbs?
    Can't it just use a more general purpose non-Qt specific build system? Maybe Meson?

    Comment


    • #3
      First off, all build systems suck in some way. Now that we've got that out of the way, from their requirements it seems like either CMake or Meson would fit the bill fine. CMake has more support among the Qt dev community but the Meson guys are usually very good at fixing any deficiencies in their product that are often thrown up by large projects moving to it. In regards to the mail thread though I personally find it odd that GN, a build system made exclusively for and by the Google devs for their own projects, would be considered over the others.

      Comment


      • #4
        nah, give us a new shiny build system written in python because we didn't fuck enough with scons or meson

        Comment


        • #5
          Meson doesn't fit the requirements. Try to build a current meson project (a real one, not hello world) with a meson build from two years ago and watch it burn. Even worse, Qt projects have only worked in meson for a few months at all, excluding basic hello world ones that don't use RCC etc. It's cross-compiling support is also really clunky to deal with (although that wasn't one of Thiago's requirements).

          Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post
          First off, all build systems suck in some way. Now that we've got that out of the way, from their requirements it seems like either CMake or Meson would fit the bill fine. CMake has more support among the Qt dev community but the Meson guys are usually very good at fixing any deficiencies in their product that are often thrown up by large projects moving to it. In regards to the mail thread though I personally find it odd that GN, a build system made exclusively for and by the Google devs for their own projects, would be considered over the others.
          It was used as an example to show that Qbs is better. gn is unusable for projects that aren't Chromium (and AFAIK that's intentional).

          Comment


          • #6
            How about ditch all that and expose CMake only? Then it's up to developer to decide what to use for building, from Makefiles to VS project, platform independent.

            Now that QtCreator supports CMake natively you can just remove qmake and qbs, nothing of value lost.
            Last edited by cen1; 07-21-2018, 10:30 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by cen1 View Post
              How about ditch all that and expose CMake only? Then it's up to developer to decide what to use for building, from Makefiles to VS project, platform independent.

              Now that QtCreator supports CMake natively you can just remove qmake and qbs, nothing of value lost.
              CMake is the ugliest of all those (excepting VS project... but that's not worth discussing), so something of value would be lost.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sigh.

                All build systems suck. They all have deficiencies.
                This reminds me of the of the old xkcd "Standards".

                https://xkcd.com/927/

                All this is just adds fragmentation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by brrrrttttt View Post
                  CMake is the ugliest of all those (excepting VS project... but that's not worth discussing), so something of value would be lost.
                  *autotools laughing in the background*

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Meson

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X