On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 23:07:55 PDT Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote: > > The whole point of not bootstrapping the tools for cross compilation is to > > remove as much as we can of the bootstrapping. Right now in 5.15, the only > > tools that really need bootstrapping are qmake and moc. And for 6.0 once > > the build system switch is merged, we can proceed to un-bootstrap qmake > > too and that removes one full level of bootstrapping. > > > > That will leave us with only moc needing bootstrapping. We can therefore > > remove libQt5Bootstrap.a and minimise the amount of work needed to keep > > the > > bootstrap working. > > In this case why did you all had the super strict requirement list when we > talked about using qbs as the build system for Qt 6? And why now you are so > understanding and flexible with all the missing pieces from cmake?
I don't think I am being less strict. The strict requirement is that Qt does not require Qt for a non-cross-compilation. There has to be a starting point in the build chain. For a non-cross-compilation, there's a single build necessary; for a cross compilation, two and one of them could be minimal. Clang can be compiled with GCC GCC used to be compilable with other, Unix C compilers GNU tar is packaged as a .shar file too zlib used to be available as uncompressed .tar; now it has a .tar.xz > There are host tools that are not very forward or backward compatible > (e.g. androiddeployqt) which might require a specific Qt version as it > knows how to deal with a specific input files... Those tools rely very much on internals *because* they've always been tied to a particular version, so people took liberties in writing those tools. Most should be updated so that they don't. We don't have to fix this for 6.0. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
