On Sep 19, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Craig Treleaven <[email protected]> wrote: > Appreciate all the effort you have and continue to put into making Qt as > painless as possible!
Thanks! And, that's the goal: as painless as possible. qt4-mac is a BIG compile, so I try hard to avoid requiring a recompile any more often than necessary. We've been disabling variants and moving them to "easy to install" ports, with the eventual goal to get qt4-mac down to just variants for +examples, +demos, +debug, and +universal. That's still a ways off, but hopefully it'll happen -- doing this reduces the compile complexity of qt4-mac, while still allowing useful features via "easy to install" ports that depend on qt4-mac. > One aspect I'd like to ask about, however, is packaging. At some point in > the future (which never seems to get any closer!), I would like to try making > an mdmg with Myth, which, of course, depends on Qt. Will the dual > library/framework for Qt cause a problem? As far as I know, the dual-install won't cause any problems. All of the ports that I've installed that directly depend on Qt4 end up with binaries (libraries and executables) that "otool -L" shows depend on the framework, not the library link -- so, I guess the linkers we're using are smart enough to follow symlinks and use the destination framework file. For this sort of packaging, chunks of Qt would be copied over (at least the frameworks in use), and internal to the application a script is executed when the application is started that sets the DYLD load path to look inside the application first, then look to the system second. Hence, as the application starts up the DYLD should find all of the frameworks correctly. I hope this answers your question, as best I understand it and the situation. - MLD _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
