Re: Successfully merged projects

[John Swensen]

On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:01 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 11-Apr-2011, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> 
> | whether to stay with qmake, or use CMake, or autotools itself, but I
> | expect building Qt with autotools will be quite a challenge,
> | considering KDE's decision a while ago to migrate from it to CMake.
> 
> Perhaps building Qt itself would be quite a challenge, but we are just
> building an application using Qt, aren't we?  Is that significantly
> different from building other applications using libraries and header
> files written in C or C++?  Don't we just need to discover whether the
> necessary libraries and header files are needed?
> 
> jwe

I think we can incorporate qmake into the regular Octave autotools, but qmake 
definitely makes some things easier.  For example, qmake already handles making 
MOC files and dealing with making an app bundle for OSX platforms. This 
encompasses a lot of rigamarole if attempted through autotools (I think). The 
point is that we would have to figure out how to do a bunch of stuff the 
"autotools way".  Is there something wrong with having an autotools target that 
calls
1) qmake in the UI directory
2) make in the UI directory
We already need QT to even build the thing and qmake is distributed with QT, so 
it isn't as if we are adding another dependency.

John Swensen