Hej Oliver, thanks for the detailed answer ! However, in the meantime I solved the framework problem on OSX already myself with install_name_tool: In fact I have two Qt versions on my machine (the trivial plugin is built with 4.7 and the example app I posted is built with 4.8) but the actual plugin problem was that it couldn't find the 4.7 libs, which I solved by copying QtCore and QtGui into the plugin-bundle and applying install_name_tool.
> Note that for Application Bundles there exists a utility tool called > 'qtmacdeploy' which does exactly the above steps: however in its > latest incarnation in Qt 4.8 it basically copies pretty much all Qt > libraries (also the ones your applicaiton doesn't really need) into > your Application Bundle (in theory qtmacdeploy should be smart enough > to figure out which Qt Frameworks and Plugins your application really > needs, e.g. by analysing the QT and CONFIG variables in your *.pro > file - in practise you can delete the unecessary Qt plugins in a > post-processing script). Yepp -- I love this tool and regularly use it ! In fact this doesn't work for the plugin problem, which is why I manually did it via install_name_tool. > Just for testing: rename ALL your Qt installation folders, make sure > that they don't appear in the PATH etc. and only leave the expected Qt > version at a place where it can be found by your plugin (I don't know > where that would be - somewhere in the PATH? In the same location as > the plugin? In a "shared folder" where the browser looks for DLLs? > Again refer to above documentation). Allright -- this is what I am doing and so far it looks fine on Mac and Win as well. > Double-check that the Qt plugins (image plugins, for instance) can be > found as well by your browser plugin! This is also the case. In fact the trivial example is very basic (as the name says ;-) - so, it essentially helps to figure if the plugin installation process works or not. It seems to require QtCore and QtGui only and these are in the bundle already. In the meantime I was able to actually load the plugin but the next problem appears that actually noting is displayed (posted this a couple of minutes ago). > But thinking about it again for a second: wouldn't it make sense to > link your browser plugin statically anyway? I mean, how would you want > to distribute it anyway? With its own installer? Yes, this is totally right but at the moment I simply want to figure the possibilities of running a Qt app within the browser and becoming familiar with the process itself. This is why I currently want to keep the actual configuration. > Also in general "dependency walker" is a /very/ helpful tool on > Windows to track down DLL dependency issues (google for it: it is a > free tool and also comes with the Windows SDK/Visual Studio). Thanks for that hint ! Best Alex > > Cheers, Oliver > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest -- http://www.carot.de http://www.triologue.de Email : alexan...@carot.de Tel.: +49 (0)177 5719797 _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
