[QT5] How do I build pile of this dog shit?! V.2
I've posted a long rant previously: "[QT5] How do I build pile of this dog shit?!":http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/28894/ This post is unrelated.
I want properly built debug/release versions of QT 5.2.1 BOTH with debug symbols so that I could actually debug. I use stock VS 2012. I also need WebKit build with ICU/OpenSSL.
I started reading from here: http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/windows-requirements.html and then went here: http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/windows-building.html
I have a simple question: who is writing that mess, was it ever followed by anybody?
It starts from these words: "Uncompress the files into the directory you want Qt installed; e.g. C:\Qt\5.2.1."
Then 5 lines below it goes this way: "Assuming the file is called qt5vars.cmd and the Qt folder is called qt-5 and located under C:\qt:"
I don't get it... why 5.2.1 suddenly changed to qt-5? Do I miss something? Was this documentation written by ten different people? Or "C:\Qt\5.2.1" is the place where source is located, and "c:\qt\qt-5" is the place where result of the build will be placed (e.g. prefix)? Did anybody ever read this fairy tale, or I'm the first one??
Why don't you release your scripts that you use to build QT that's released, or the installers? This way people could simply repeat the same steps and have properly functioning build of QT. If they are released, where can I find these scripts that are used to build whatever is distributed on QT download page?
The reason I want to rebuild is that released pdb files contain source info that is unusable (c:\work\build\qt5_workdir\w\s....), on top of that it looks like 32-bit machine was used to build it (WTF?!) because internal use of stl resolves to this location: c:\program files\microsoft visual studio 11.0\ while on normal modern workstations it's in "c:\program files (x86)" folder
If you want a good guide, try "this":http://qt-project.org/wiki/Building_Qt_5_from_Git. You can skip the git stuff if you prefer the .zip package.
The documentation page you link to is indeed quite badly written. We can improve it in the future, of course :-D