Oliver: Yes, none of this will ever touch the store.
"This is a fine approach". But how would you do it? This is today's project. (hopefully only this morning) Thanks, md On 5/9/2015 1:26 AM, Till Oliver Knoll wrote: > > > > >> Am 09.05.2015 um 03:01 schrieb mark diener <rpzrpz...@gmail.com>: >> >> Found a reference to the issue to install into /Library/Qt directory and >> install-name-tool : > > Just be aware that this is /very/ unusual for OS X apps to do: the expected > way is really that each app bundle is self-contained and links against > "system provided frameworks" (Cocoa and friends). Even if that means that > each application brings along its own Qt libs... > > Needless to say that the former approach needs an "installer" (which is > discouraged very much by Apple) and you run into issues when users want to > get rid of one of your applications: "Who is the last to remove the shared Qt > libraries"? > > And what happens if a user installs an older app, possibly overwriting a > newer shared Qt library? Your installer needs to do a version check etc. to > solve this. > > And it goes without saying that your applications will never make it into the > Mac App Store that way - if that's what you want. > > > On the other hand if we're talking about some "in-house tools" which are > deployed in a controlled manner then this is a fine approach :) > > Just some thoughts... > > Cheers, > Oliver > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > -- No spell checkers were harmed during the creation of this message. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
