[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 86, Issue 17

[Vadim Peretokin]

Since switching to AppImage, our Qt application stopped having the majority
of Linux distribution-specific deployment images and it's been mostly
trouble-free. I can recommend it. It also does not require any kind of an
internet connection.

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:19 PM Roland Hughes <roland at logikalsolutions.com>
wrote:

> Alexander:
>
> Having burned multiple days with
> https://github.com/probonopd/linuxdeployqt
>
> I need to warn you, it is only for simple applications which can compile
> on Ubuntu 14.04 using a dated version of Qt. If you need a current
> webengine or other current features you will be resoundingly disappointed.
> If your application has plug-ins (be they browser or some other kind) the
> tool isn't good at finding their library dependencies. They also refuse to
> add a -include-lib-dir type switch were you could park all of the libraries
> it missed so it could easily scoop them up.
>
> This may or may not be an issue for you, but, AppImage is something of an
> inverted philosophy. It's not "one Deb to rule them all" which is how
> things were done in the past. Each AppImage is built specifically for the
> target. For us that was a complete show stopper. More than 90% of the
> machines running the application globally have zero Internet connection.
> One box, somewhere, does. It pulls down the package and installs on all of
> the other machines via sneaker-net. Hardware and OS version vary wildly.
> (At its Internet connection peak, 1 in 7 machines had Internet access. That
> has since been reduced.)
>
> Don't know if you will be providing support or not, but, from a support
> standpoint, you really have no idea what got delivered.
>
> What really floors me about the Linux world and even the Qt world with
> respect to Webengine or plug-ins, is this desperate clinging to dynamic
> linking. It was a bad idea which got worse over time. Take a look at the
> current AppImage path. Rather than admit dynamic linking was a failed
> experiment, they are now packaging entire dynamic libraries repeatedly.
>
> Back in the days of DOS, we only linked the functions we needed. Not the
> entire 300+Meg library we didn't need. Only a tiny set of INT-21 and 3
> other INTs were expected to be provided by the OS.
>
> While some will find it useful, Snappy hasn't delivered on its promises. I
> haven't spent enough time with Flatpak to say if it is taking the correct
> approach or is simply more the same.
>
> Just my 0.0002 cents. Having recently walked this road.
>
>
> On 11/16/18 10:52 AM, Alexander Dyagilev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Windows we have windeployqt.
> >
> > On MAC - macdeployqt.
> >
> > On Linux - there is no tool for this ? Is there some convenient
> > alternative way to copy all the required Qt files then (my project uses
> > Quick Controls 2)?
>
> --
> Roland Hughes, President
> Logikal Solutions
> (630) 205-1593
>
> http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
> http://www.infiniteexposure.net
> http://www.johnsmith-book.com
> http://www.logikalblog.com
> http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
> http://lesedi.us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20181117/94564f9a/attachment.html>