On 02.01.2013 14:33, Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > On 2/01/13 11:01 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> On 02.01.2013 13:50, Yves Bailly wrote: >>> Le 02/01/2013 13:42, Thiago Macieira a écrit : >>>> On quarta-feira, 2 de janeiro de 2013 10.53.03, Yves Bailly wrote: >>>>> Does anyone knows where I could find the source code of the "official" >>>>> installer, or at least some information about what it does? Because the >>>>> installer does relocate the binaries, that would be a good starting point >>>>> to relocate my own binaries... >>>> It simply edits the qmake and QtCore DLL binaries, plus maybe some files in >>>> mkspecs, changing a placeholder prefix to the installation dir. >>> Editing binaries? hu, havent't done that since... a long time ;-) Changing >>> some >> Sounds like a really bad hack. And this was not changed in Qt 5? >> > > QTDIR was a hack. You'd end up with the libs from one version of Qt and > the plugins from another. Plus, Qt installations couldn't have parts in > arbitrary locations like they can now. > > qt.conf is a hack because your app doesn't read it before it's found > QtCore (so it can't change the Qt libs your app pulls in, only the > plugins and data paths).
Isn't on Windows only PATH used to figure out which Dll to load? Then qt.conf in the same dir as QtCore/qmake should be enough on Windows, or missed I something? BTW, one thing which becomes at least more complicated by this binary patching is the signing of a shared library. I don't know if it is necessary (I only know that you can sign a dll in .NET), but I could imagine some day it will be used, e.g. to verify a program only uses by a specific build. (I already see the discussions because of LGPL ;) ) Peter _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development