[Development] Non-movable Qt build

[Kalinowski Maurice]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-bounces+maurice.kalinowski=digia.com at qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+maurice.kalinowski=digia.com at qt-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Peter Kümmel
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 12:45 PM
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Non-movable Qt build
> 
> On 04.01.2013 12:27, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On sexta-feira, 4 de janeiro de 2013 09.35.33, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >> Isn't on Windows only PATH used to figure out which Dll to load?
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> >> Then
> >> qt.conf in the same dir as QtCore/qmake should be enough on Windows,
> or
> >> missed I something?
> >
> > You missed something. The question is: when running app.exe from a
> given
> > directory, how do you tell Windows to load Qt5Core.dll or QtCore4.dll from
> a
> > different directory?
> >
> > The only answer is what you gave above: change PATH. Because qt.conf
> isn't
> > used at this point.
> 
> Still don't get it: when PATH is the only way to tell the app
> which Qt dlls to load, why do we need to patch the dlls?
> Or is PATH changed by app.exe before it loads the Qt dlls and has the
> paths compiled in?

Eg. Plugins. The plugin paths are read from the binary as well as qt.conf

The fact that the dll loading comes via PATH is simply a system design on Windows.

BR,
Maurice


> 
> >
> >> BTW, one thing which becomes at least more complicated by this binary
> >> patching is the signing of a shared library. I don't know if it is
> >> necessary (I only know that you can sign a dll in .NET), but I could
> >> imagine some day it will be used, e.g. to verify a program only uses by a
> >> specific build.
> >> (I already see the discussions because of LGPL  )
> >
> > Since we're talking about LGPL, signing the library is unnecessary. And
> maybe
> > even illegal, depending on your reading of the LGPL and how you consider
> that
> > the GPLv3 applies.
> >
> > The Windows installers are signed, as a whole, to ensure that they weren't
> > tampered with.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development