On 7/11/07, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/07/2007 22.41, Martin Blais wrote:
> I ran the simplest configure command::
>
> C:\tmp\PyQt-win-gpl-4-snapshot-20070710>C:/Python25/python.exe
> configure.py
> Determining the layout of your Qt installation...
> Error: Make sure you have a working Qt v4 qmake on your PATH or use
> the -q
> argument to explicitly specify a working Qt v4 qmake.
>
> Oops, it seems I need to specify the location of qmake. Okie, so I
> add it to the cmdline::
>
> C:\tmp\PyQt-win-gpl-4-snapshot-20070710>C:/Python25/python.exe
> configure.py -q C:/Qt/4.3.0/qmake/qmake.exe -w
No, this is a mistake, but it's not your fault. You must have Qt in your PATH.
The -q option is totally broken under Windows, because it looks like it lets
you pick a version of Qt which is not in the PATH, but it doesn't really work,
because the executable built with it won't be executed because of the missing
DLLs (not in the PATH).
[...]
So, ignore the (wrong) suggestion of configure.py, and just add Qt's binary
directory to the path.
Awesome, thanks, this works!
For the benefits of all the others like me dabbling for hours trying
to compile PyQt under Windows, I will document the procedure and paste
it on the wiki. I'm sure that this act alone will save thousands
dollars in salary-hours around the world, and a lot of unnecessary
pain and friction.
The PyQt setup is actually super clean if only you get it started the
right way, but I can't help wonder why no-one ever bothered taking an
extra 20 mins to provide clear instructions-for-dummies on the Wiki
how to use all that beautiful work. It must have been a lot more pain
to actually make this setup, why not make sure it gets used? And if
it actually does get tested, why not provide a binary?
cheers, (my machine seems to be compiling happily...)
_______________________________________________
PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com
http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
