Since switching to AppImage, our Qt application stopped having the majority of Linux distribution-specific deployment images and it's been mostly trouble-free. I can recommend it. It also does not require any kind of an internet connection.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:19 PM Roland Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexander: > > Having burned multiple days with > https://github.com/probonopd/linuxdeployqt > > I need to warn you, it is only for simple applications which can compile > on Ubuntu 14.04 using a dated version of Qt. If you need a current > webengine or other current features you will be resoundingly disappointed. > If your application has plug-ins (be they browser or some other kind) the > tool isn't good at finding their library dependencies. They also refuse to > add a -include-lib-dir type switch were you could park all of the libraries > it missed so it could easily scoop them up. > > This may or may not be an issue for you, but, AppImage is something of an > inverted philosophy. It's not "one Deb to rule them all" which is how > things were done in the past. Each AppImage is built specifically for the > target. For us that was a complete show stopper. More than 90% of the > machines running the application globally have zero Internet connection. > One box, somewhere, does. It pulls down the package and installs on all of > the other machines via sneaker-net. Hardware and OS version vary wildly. > (At its Internet connection peak, 1 in 7 machines had Internet access. That > has since been reduced.) > > Don't know if you will be providing support or not, but, from a support > standpoint, you really have no idea what got delivered. > > What really floors me about the Linux world and even the Qt world with > respect to Webengine or plug-ins, is this desperate clinging to dynamic > linking. It was a bad idea which got worse over time. Take a look at the > current AppImage path. Rather than admit dynamic linking was a failed > experiment, they are now packaging entire dynamic libraries repeatedly. > > Back in the days of DOS, we only linked the functions we needed. Not the > entire 300+Meg library we didn't need. Only a tiny set of INT-21 and 3 > other INTs were expected to be provided by the OS. > > While some will find it useful, Snappy hasn't delivered on its promises. I > haven't spent enough time with Flatpak to say if it is taking the correct > approach or is simply more the same. > > Just my 0.0002 cents. Having recently walked this road. > > > On 11/16/18 10:52 AM, Alexander Dyagilev wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Windows we have windeployqt. > > > > On MAC - macdeployqt. > > > > On Linux - there is no tool for this ? Is there some convenient > > alternative way to copy all the required Qt files then (my project uses > > Quick Controls 2)? > > -- > Roland Hughes, President > Logikal Solutions > (630) 205-1593 > > http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com > http://www.infiniteexposure.net > http://www.johnsmith-book.com > http://www.logikalblog.com > http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog > http://lesedi.us > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
