Benjamin Reed wrote: > Pejvan BEIGUI wrote: > >> Well, hum, the DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH is set to: >> >>> echo $DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH >>> /Users/pejvan/temporary/xml/xerces-c-src_2_5_0/lib:/Developer/qt/lib > > > That will definitely cause problems with Fink's Qt; it will override to > use the qt-mac one instead. I really hate the way the Qt folks > recommend overriding your system; DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH is really not a good > solution for a general way of adding libraries to your environment, > IMHO. You end up with problems exactly like this. > > But I digress... =) >
Ok thanks. So does this mean that I have to unset this env var when I want to use KDevelop under X11 ? >> but I don't know what to symlink, because I have several versions of >> Qt/Mac and now fink's Qt/X11 : > > > The Qt/Mac INSTALL or README (I forget which) recommends symlinking the > libqt dylib(s) to /usr/lib, which I think is an absolutely horrible > idea. It appears you have that as well, since you have a > /usr/lib/libqt-mt.3.dylib. ooh yeah, know I remember having done that too. > > Personally, I modified my Qt/Mac to have a proper install_name. > > The only solution for you is to either modify your Qt/Mac's install_name which is ? > and relink things you're developing against it, or to only set > DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH and/or symlink libqt-mt.3.dylib to /usr/lib when you > want to use Qt/Mac, or something along those lines. > OK, I'd rather set the install_name the way you did. It seems the better way to solve this. Could you please tip me on how you did this? Will I have to recompile all KDE and KDevelop ? > 2 different Qt's with entirely different behaviours will always clash > with each other if you're playing with DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH and such. It's > the nature of how MacOSX's dynamic loading works. > > I've complained to the Qt list as well as supplying my patches to the qt > build to them to set install_name, but so far it's still not implemented > that way (and certainly wasn't in 3.3.0). I'm not entirely sure why, > since the Qt/Mac guy I've spoken to in the past is usually pretty good > about taking such things. Might be for compatibility reasons, but it's > a bad idea in the long run. > Once I've figured all this out, I'll drop an email to the support team, since I've had to buy a commercial licence (in order to compile on Windows... :-/) maybe they'll take this more responsively. Thanks for your help, Pejvan -- Pejvan BEIGUI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cet email comporte une signature electronique au format OpenPGP/MIME. Pour votre propre s�curit�, tout email semblant provenir de cette adresse mais ne comportant pas de signature ou une signature non-valide sera r�put� falsifi�.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
