On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:47:56 -0500, Dave Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave Peterson wrote: >>> You could try running qmake manually on the qtdirs.pro file that >>> configure.py will have left lying around, and then run make, and then >>> the >>> qtdirs it produces. If it fails to run then it's a problem with your Qt >>> build. >>> >> >> Yup, I actually already tried that so I could play around with various >> options. I've looked through the generated qtdirs.mk to look for >> anything wrong there, but not found anything. :-( I've also tried >> manually running the various g++ compilation commands to build qtdirs >> so I could play with the option flags there too. Nothing I've tried >> seems to have any effect on this issue. :-( > > So perhaps the issue is simply that I didn't know what to look for in > the qtdirs.mk? As a better check, I just tried diff'ing a qtdirs.mk > from my custom-built Qt install versus one from the official binary > install. For the most part the only differences are in the paths to the > various Qt installed bits. However, I've noted the following which > looks super relevant. I just don't know how this stuff gets generated so > I'm not sure how to go about debugging / fixing it. Any advice? > > In the qtdirs.mk done against my custom-built Qt install, the INCPATH > definition on line 16 includes a > "-I/Users/dpeterson/py/qtbuild/install/Qt-4.5.1-1.egg/EGG-INFO/usr/include/QtCore" > > whereas the one generated from the official Qt 4.5.1 install has > "-I/Library/Frameworks/QtCore.framework/Versions/4/Headers" in the same > position. > > BTW: The qtdirs.pro files are exactly the same across the two different > attempts. > > BTW: a "qmake -query" from each environment shows what looks like the > right paths, but again I may be confused about what they should be. > From the official Qt binary install, the QT_INSTALL_LIBS output is > "/Library/Frameworks" which I note only contains the Qt frameworks. But > in my custom-built Qt environment, QT_INSTALL_LIBS points at > ".../EGG_INFO/usr/lib" which contains both the Qt framework bundles, > plus a number of *.la files (one per framework bundle) and a few > libQtCLucene*.dylib and associated libQtCLucene.(la | prl) files. Is it > possible that these .la files or the mixing of frameworks and dylibs is > causing the difference in behavior? I'll try deleting them now.
They shouldn't make a difference - they are present in my standard self-built version. The directory layout you get when using the binary installer is different than what you get if you do your own standard build. I never use the installers because, historically at least, they've had problems. So if you want to compare your non-standard build with something that will work I'd do a standard built of your own. To build Qt... ./configure -prefix $HOME/qt-4.5.2 make make install To build PyQt... python configure.py -q $HOME/qt-4.5.2/bin/qmake That should give you a working PyQt and you can compare properly. Phil _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list [email protected] http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
