On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:59:44PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > >A second > >reason is that qmake has two abilities than none of the other three > >systems have: It knows about Qt, so no special code for .ui or such > >needed, and it has _real_ MSVS integration including project management, > >integrated help, designer and so on based on .pro files as primary > >source of information. > > Are you sure that those feature are available in the open source version > of Qt?
Hm... not sure. I've been using the commercial version of Qt for three years and now in the new job some in-house version from which both the commercial and the OS versions are build. I think I never used the OS version on Windows myself, so I don't really know how much it differs from the commercial one. I'll try to increase my level of knowledge ;-} > Don't tell your boss but we are not using the official version of > Qt but a patched version in order to compile with MSVC. There's nothing wrong with patching the OS version of Qt. It's open source after all. > >Also, the final solution in the build system arena might as well be some > >hybrid solution as e.g. using autoconf for the actual configuration and > >using the fastest 'build backend'. > > I'd be OK personally with an autoconf/QMake provided that we make sure > that the MSYS autoconf works well in this case. Point noted. > >>- Why don't you stop the windows installer nonsense? > > > >Because I already wasted half a year of my lifetime on Windows installers > >and I won't touch them even with a three yard pole unless there was a > >_really good reason_. [And I doubt your purse is big enough to qualify > >as "_really good reason_" ;-}] > > Well, it's not like we are wasting an awful lot of resources here > either. Up to now only Joost and Uwe are wasting their time in the > competition. But I don't think their time would get automatically > invested to core development if they agree (please correct me if I am > wrong Joost and Uwe). Bo and Christian both tried to get involved and > failed AFAIK. But I agree that this situation is utterly confusing for > the end-users. So we should make some effort to rectify this situation rather soonish, too... Andre'
