[Interest] Is Qt Library for OS X frameworks only?

Nikos Chantziaras realnc at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 17:39:49 CEST 2012

On 17/10/12 18:17, Andrea Franceschini wrote:
> 2012/10/17 Daniel Price <daniel.price at fxhome.com>:
>> I always build Qt on the Mac without frameworks. I have no idea
>> why Qt/mac defaults to using fraweworks as they add no value
>> (with one exception - the dummy menu nib) and just make
>> deployment 1000x harder.
> I may very well be wrong on this but I thought frameworks get included
> in the app bundle, hence making deployment way easier (but obviously
> heavier as it's almost like statically linking libs inside the
> executable). I find the shared libs deploy-once-run-everything better
> from an engineering point of view, but I recognise Apple's bundles and
> frameworks have some good points (like avoiding littering the
> filesystem with exotic libs that are only used by one application).

You don't install libs either way.  In all cases (frameworks, shared 
libraries, static libraries), everything you need is inside the app 
bundle.  In the case of shared libs, the *.dylib files go in the bundle 
and then you use the install_name_tool utility to adapt the library 
search paths of the binaries.

However, like with frameworks, you get bigger binaries. The smallest 
binaries are only possible with static linking, since dead code 
stripping can't work with shared libraries or frameworks.  The only 
downside of static linking is that some parts of Qt don't work with it 
(WebKit, I think.)

More information about the Interest mailing list