[Development] Why custom installer on Mac, why not using @rpath?

[Adam Strzelecki]

> Since Qt is huge I would claim that many people would prefer to have a component selection where they can choose what parts they'd like to omit. Sources or no sources, extra tools or not, (…)

I think your points are very fair. Then win-win would be to keep the installer, but not compress the SDK into installers bundle "installer.dat" (applies just to Mac, where dmg provides already packaging and compression, but also random file access), but keep the SDK files there next to installer (either hidden or not), i.e.:

Install Qt SDK.app
Qt5.1.sdk/
- Frameworks/
- Sources/
Tools/
- Qt Creator.app/

This will also make installer.app launch quicker because no need to compute 400MB dat file signature for Gatekeeper, where anyway dmg does consistency check upon open.

> That said, I'm not against improving the structure of Qt/Mac regarding e.g. rpath, plugins etc, but that discussion is independent (*) of the discussion of using an installer for Qt on Mac or not.
> (*) in the sense of that even if there was no patching needed to make Qt work in principle without an installer, there are enough reasons to use an installer anyhow.


Agreed.

Regards,
-- 
Adam Strzelecki | nanoant.com | twitter.com/nanoant