Hey Bernard,
I'm sorry you're still having trouble with this.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Bernard Sufrin
<
sufrin....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 15 September 2014 16:02:33 UTC+1, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
>>
>> The problem is clearly that these headers are not in the location
>> expected by the compiler
>
> Without saying that the following is the only way to get around this
> problem, I have found that on OS/X (Mavericks and earlier) the problem is
> that the structure of the appropriate Qt5 include and lib directories are
> somewhat different on OS/X from Linux. In the former, the include directory
> is sparse, and the lib directory includes framework structures.
If that's indeed the case, it would be a bug in the distribution of
Qt. The structure under the main include path is determined by the
upstream project, not by any Linux distribution. If you download the
files provided at the project website, it will match the paths
expected by the qml package as well.
That said, I haven't found much in the following examples that
demonstrate such divergences, so I'm not entirely sure about what
you're reporting.
For example:
> 596 $ ls include/
> QtOpenGLExtensions/ QtPlatformSupport/ QtUiTools/
This looks like the main include path. I can find both
QtOpenGLExtensions and QtPlatformSupport under /usr/include/qt5, and I
expect you'll be able to find QApplication under
include/QtWidgets/QApplication as well.
> 597 $ find lib -path "*.framework*Headers"
> lib/Enginio.framework/Headers
> lib/Enginio.framework/Versions/1/Headers
> lib/QtBluetooth.framework/Headers
> lib/QtBluetooth.framework/Versions/5/Headers
> lib/QtCLucene.framework/Headers
> ... etc etc ...
I don't have any of these, with or without the ".framework" suffix.
> It would be great to have a more portable, less brute-force, variant of the
> go-qml distribution; but I'm in no position to make one.
I would love that as well, and we have been working in that direction
for a while. That said, I'm not a Mac OS user, so I cannot tell what
"portable" would mean for you. I know, for example, that a number of
people have had an easier time getting it setup lately, after v1 is
out, and no one reported the kind of hackery you describe. So it
sounds like there's already a better way to do that.
gustavo @
http://niemeyer.net