[CMake] CMake Digest, Vol 85, Issue 43

[Dick Munroe]

On 5/14/11 9:49 AM, cmake-request at cmake.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:42:45 -0400
> From: John Drescher<drescherjm at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CMake] How do you go about building the cmake-gui from
> 	source	in 2.8.4?
> To: Dick Munroe<munroe at csworks.com>
> Cc:cmake at cmake.org
> Message-ID:<BANLkTikKyM8fRYR2a6tEgKQfAFcoGnsmnQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>> >  Yeah, I figured that part out indirectly.
>> >
>> >  I had to install the QT4 SDK to get the necessary bits, but rcc.exe (Windows
>> >  XP, desktop component of QT) fails for no obvious reason.
>> >
> Did you build that from scratch using Visual Studio 2005 and not any
> other compiler or version?
No.  On most systems, SDKs are either provided with a list of the system 
requirements or multiple SDKs are provided.  There doesn't appear to be 
any obvious documentation on the QT4 download page that states the SDK 
needs to be rebuilt to match each specific configuration or provides a 
list of the system requirement for the specific SDK.  Clearly Windoze 
has different expectations.
>> >
>> >  Here is what I posted on the QT installation/deployment forum about the
>> >  problem:
>> >
>> >  I?m trying to rebuild CMake-gui.
> Are you trying to modify it for some reason? I also do not see the
> need to rebuild it.
>
Yes, but the reason isn't the point here, the point is that the tools 
provided by the QT4 SDK fail.  Asking about why the rebuild is necessary 
or desirable isn't particularly helpful.  I could think of a dozen 
different reasons, including simple interest, for wanting to rebuild 
cmake-gui.
>> >  I?ve gotten to the point where I downloaded
>> >  and installed the QT4 SDK, configured CMake for VS 2005 and fired up the
>> >  build, which failed when trying to run rcc.exe. When I try to run RCC.EXE
>> >  directly from the command prompt, I get:
>> >
>> >  The system cannot execute the specified program.
>> >
>> >  When I try it from cygwin?s command prompt, I get:
>> >
> You should not mix cygwin building and visual studio building. What
> are you doing here?
>
Hmmm, could be that I'm trying to see what's blowing up without VS 2005 
getting in the way so that I can provide more information to the people 
who might be helpful?  Each command shell has specific pluses and 
minuses that may or may not provide additional information to smart 
folks with more experience in this area that I have.  I'm simply stating 
facts: when I fire up RCC I get this error under command shell x, that 
error under command shell y, when I use this tool, I get information z.  
Since I DON'T know what the problem is, I DON'T know, a priori, what 
information will be helpful.
>> >  Permission Denied
>> >
>> >  Firing up Dependency Walker, I get an error when opening rcc.exe:
>> >
>> >  The side-by-side configuration information for
>> >  ??desktop\qt\4.7.3\msvc2005\bin\RCC.EXE? contains errors. This application
>> >  has failed to start because the application configuration is incorrect.
>> >  Reinstalling the application may fix this problem (14001).
>> >
> This usually means you do not have the correct run times installed.
> Did you download the Visual Studio 2008 binary release. That will not
> work with Visual Studio 2005. You need to build Qt for your compiler.
>
Which would be cool if that was documented anywhere.  I'll give that a 
try and see if I can get that to work.

Best,

Dick Munroe
>> >  Which I tried with no joy.
>> >
>> >  There are a couple of delay loaded dlls that aren?t present, IESHIMS and
>> >  WER, but these appear to be more or less specific to Vista and don?t apply
>> >  to XP (which is what I?m running on).
>> >
>> >  So how do I get around this? Is this an SDK problem? or something really
>> >  obscure in Windoze? I?m not primarily a Windows person so I?m not 100% on
>> >  all the ins and outs here, but I would think that the RCC.EXE as installed
>> >  by the QT4 SDK installer should at least start on XP.
>> >
>> >  Any and all hints will be appreciated.
>> >
>> >  Best,
>> >
>> >  Dick Munroe
>> >
>> >  Any clues?
>> >