Qt4 as both framework and library

[Craig Treleaven]

At 11:44 AM -0400 9/19/12, Michael Dickens wrote:
>After some thinking about the amount of effort I've put into relocating
>Qt's frameworks from ${prefix}/lib to ${prefix}/Library/Frameworks, and
>how much more will need to be done -- e.g., for CMake, and pretty much
>any CMake-using port that tries to find Qt4, to work reliably when
>trying to find "qt4-mac +framework" -- I think it makes sense to remove
>the +framework variant and just always install qt4-mac as -both-
>framework and libraries / headers.  Internal to the actual Qt build,
>+framework will be used since that fixes some issues with ports that
>depend on Qt being installed in that way.  And, then links are created
>for headers and libraries & related files.
>
>I'm also updating qt4-mac to 4.8.3_0 at the same time, which brings a
>few small fixes but otherwise doesn't change too much.
>
>I've been testing this change out on ports that depend on qt4-mac, and
>thus far they all work as desired.  A few figure (e.g., qwt) out that Qt
>is installed as a framework and then replicate that behavior (installing
>themselves as a framework into the correct frameworks directory), while
>most find Qt as libraries and replicate that side (installing themselves
>into the libraries directory).  Overall, so far in my testing this
>change is a win-win solution for everyone: ports relying on Qt4 being
>installed as a framework will be happy (since it is internally installed
>that way), while those just looking to find Qt4 as libraries will find
>them in the usual place with the usual names.
>
>But, before I make this change I want to reach out to you, MacPorts
>developers and users, to ask what you think of it.  Does it make sense
>to you?  Do you think your ports / projects will work with it?  Do you
>require Qt to be installed one way or the other?
>
>I appreciate any comments / thoughts / discussion. - MLD

Michael:

Appreciate all the effort you have and continue to put into making Qt 
as painless as possible!

One aspect I'd like to ask about, however, is packaging.  At some 
point in the future (which never seems to get any closer!), I would 
like to try making an mdmg with Myth, which, of course, depends on 
Qt.  Will the dual library/framework for Qt cause a problem?

Craig