Re: [jamboost] QT support, and some problems

From: Felix E. Klee (felix.klee.jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-21 12:38:24

On Tuesday 21 January 2003 14:19, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > 1st try:
> > [...]/examples-v2/qt-ui> bjam
> > ...found 28 targets...
> > ...updating 7 targets...
> > qt.uic-h bin/gcc/debug/main-target-hello/hello_world_widget.h
> > /bin/sh: hello_world_widget.ui: command not found
> >
> > hello_world_widget.ui -o
> > bin/gcc/debug/main-target-hello/hello_world_widget.h
>
> I see the problem now. The reason is that Dave has fix a bug in Jam
> recently, and I have not updated qt.jam: in contained a workaround for it.
> Please try again, with up-to-date bjam and Boost.Build.

Thanks, it works fine now. Just one minor issue, concerning that hello world 
applet: resizing it feels kind of weird because the label and the button are 
not resized automatically. This can easily be fixed by letting them be 
managed by a layout: just select the main window in Designer and click on the 
"Lay Out Vertically" button.

> > BTW, once you have that fixed, could you please make the extension of the
> > files generated by the uic customizable? I really prefer "h" to "hpp" and
> > some people might prefer eg. "cc" to "cpp".
>
> I've no problem changing suffix for headers that UIC generates. In fact,
> it's specified on line 36 of qt.jam. However, I'm not sure what our policy
> should be. Do we allow to customize all extensions? 

What do you mean by *all*? Do you really mean all extensions used by Boost 
Build (eg. the user could specify that "xyz" should be added to the list of 
extensions for object files)? This might be nice to have, but maybe it's not 
worth the effort. In addition, we would need a rule so that programs like uic 
can decide which extension to use when several extensions for the same file 
type are specified.

> Or would it be better
> to say that UIC generates *target* types CPP and H and use default
> extension for that type. 

And what are those default extensions? If they are customizable then I'm fine 
with that solution.

> Or, should be allow the user to say: when
> generating headers, prefer the "hpp" extension.

I don't see much of a difference to the solution above. 

Felix

-- 
To contact me personally don't reply but send email to 
felix DOT klee AT inka DOT de