ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alberto Mardegan <alberto.mardegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dimitri,
  thanks for explaining things so clearly!

On 12/16/2013 04:54 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
[...]
> There is no technical limitation, why a qmake binary cannot be adapted
> to read all configuration & qmake modules from a configurable location
> at runtime, instead of hard-coded one at compile time. Afterall cmake,
> autoconf configure scripts, waf and many other build-systems can.
> Ideologically / historically that was not the case for qmake but there
> are little technical limitation why it should be able to gain such a
> feature. It already can read / adapt at runtime based on qt-config
> configuration files.

I see. The funny thing is that qmake already doesn't depend on Qt, so
it's very unfortunate that the paths are hardcoded into it. BTW, is
upstream aware of the problems that this causes, and are they willing to
consider a different approach?
A compromise would be to let them hardcode all the paths, but make them
overridable somehow.

[...]
> I haven't looked into QBS yet. If it has similar cross-compilation
> deficiencies, and technological restrictions (great for C++/Qt & QML
> and nothing else), then again I'll be still inclined to support CMake
> only.

I don't know much about it either, but from the bits I've collected
around, it seems that the cross compilation support is good, and being a
separate project from Qt it doesn't suffer for the hardcoding problem
qmake has.

Ciao,
  Alberto