Ask / Submit

[Idea] Replace Windows SDK with Linux SDK on VirtualBox

asked 2015-04-22 20:34:08 +0200

Looks like the Windows version of the SDK is not (and is #unlike to be) fully aligned with the Linux one, feature-wise and bug-wise.

If this is the case, why not put the Linux SDK in a VirtualBox image, bundled with a distribution tailored for sailfish developers?

The business case for Jolla is easy:

  1. recovery of valuable resources (at least 1 FTE for each release cycle)

  2. reduction of dissatisfaction levels between Windows-based developers.

edit retag flag offensive close delete


How would you solve the problem with transfering the source files or the final binaries between host and VM? There is the "shared folder" feature of VirtualBox, but that is quite inefficient. Another solution would be to share files via NFS or some kind of IP tunnel (OpenVPN, self brewn ssh), which is relatively difficult to configure.

ibins ( 2015-04-22 21:22:53 +0200 )edit

@ibins the current SDK for Windows already uses two VMs (one for mer and one for sailfish) with shared folders. So, looks like this problem was considered a non-issue in the design phase of the SDK.

tstdnl ( 2015-04-22 21:50:15 +0200 )edit

vbox also has bidirectional drag and drop for files, as well as bidirectional clipboard.

The main issue is the emulator, as the build engine can be set up in a chroot with sb2.

Except now instead of maintaining an sdk based off qtc which is already cross platform, they're maintaining a whole linux image.

r0kk3rz ( 2015-04-22 22:04:16 +0200 )edit

@tstdnl: True, there already are shared folders. The difference is, that they are preconfigured within the SDK download package. Installing the SDK as a VM would automatically require more configuration from users. And a VM within a VM is a bad idea.
I really like the idea to separate the tools (emulator and compiling environment) from the source code. This makes you less dependend on third party software like qtcreator, as the editor can be replaced.

ibins ( 2015-04-22 22:45:12 +0200 )edit

@r0kk3rz they already maintain a linux image under VirtualBox. :-) All they have to do is add the developer tools and a small native windows launcher+configurator.

tstdnl ( 2015-04-22 22:48:09 +0200 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

answered 2015-04-22 22:30:51 +0200

tortoisedoc gravatar image

Which features are you missing from the Windows version? I have been hard-core developing on it since 2014, quite happily I must say.

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


I use both, linux and win QtCreator versions, and haven't noticed anything that blocks or makes my life harder (with deploy-just-a-rpm-flow).

I'm also interested what are the differences between these?

I use daily a EDA tool on a VM, which kinda s**ks for several reasons, like UI usability. Using something like QtCreator on a VM - I'm not interested.

kimmoli ( 2015-04-22 22:38:59 +0200 )edit

@tortoisedoc I'm experiencing configuration issues and I am just an “itch scratcher” used to work with fully functional tools and not an “hardcore developer”: my day job is not even strictly related to IT.

tstdnl ( 2015-04-22 23:35:05 +0200 )edit
Login/Signup to Answer

Question tools



Asked: 2015-04-22 20:34:08 +0200

Seen: 330 times

Last updated: Apr 22 '15