bazel_rules_qt VS rules_python

I migrated a mid-size polyglot project from Makefiles to Bazel and C++ was a large component of the project.

Some obstacles:

1. Building with QT5 MOC & UI files. There is a great library[0] for it but it has hardcoded paths to the QT binaries and header files assuming a system-wide installation. I had to patch the rule to point to our QT location. Then it worked fine.

2. There is no rule to build a fully static library[1]. Since we were shipping a static library in our Makefile system, that was somewhat annoying.

3. We were using system links like `$PROJECT_ROOT/links/GCC/vX.Y.Z/ -> /opt/gcc/...` to point to all the build tools, but these didn't work in Bazel I think because it required absolute paths for any binaries it calls. We ended up putting them in a .bazelrc but we would need a different one for Windows and Linux.

4. Not good integration with IDEs

Ultimately we did not keep using Bazel because we were building Python binaries and py_binary was too slow on Windows. And we didn't have enough time to write a PyInstaller rule.

[0]: https://github.com/justbuchanan/bazel_rules_qt

[1]: https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/1920

What's SV?

I honestly don't know why anyone would use that... as in what does Bazel do better than virtually anything else that can provide this functionality. But, I used to be an ops engineer in a big company which wanted everything to be Maven, regardless of whether it does it well or not. So we built and deployed with Maven a lot of weird and unrelated stuff.

Not impossible, but not anything I'd advise anyone to do on their free time.

Specifically wrt' the link you posted, if you look here: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/main/python/... it says that only pure Python wheels are supported, but that's also a lie, they don't support half of the functionality of pure Python wheels.

So, definitely not worth using, since lots of functionality is simply not there.

Regarding bazel, the rules_python has a py_wheel rule that helps you creating wheels that you can upload to pypi (https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/52e14b78307a...).

If you want to see an approach of bazel to pypi taken a bit to the extreme you can have a look at tensorflow on GitHub to see how they do it. They don't use the above-mentioned building rule because I think their build step is quite complicated (C/C++ stuff, Vida/ROCm support, python bindings, and multiOS support all in one before you can publish to pypi).

Python support in Bazel now looks more promising with `rules_python`: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python

`rules_go` to my understanding is great too.

Over years, Bazel is not as opinionated as before, mostly because adoptions in different orgs force it to be so.

I have personally run converted build systems to Bazel, and use it for personal projects as well.

Bazel 1.0 was released in October 2019. If you were using it "a few years ago", I'm guessing you were using a pre-1.0 version. There's not some cutoff where Bazel magically got easy to use, and I still wouldn't describe it as "easy", but the problem it solves is hard to solve well, and the community support for Bazel has gotten a lot better over the past years.

https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python

The difficulty and complexity of using Bazel is highly variable. I've seen some projects where using Bazel is just super simple and easy, and some projects where using Bazel required a massive effort (custom toolchains and the like).

load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive") #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Python #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # enable python rules http_archive( name = "rules_python", url = "https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/releases/download/0.2.0/rules_python-0.2.0.tar.gz", sha256 = "778197e26c5fbeb07ac2a2c5ae405b30f6cb7ad1f5510ea6fdac03bded96cc6f", )