Personally I do not think so.
When I want to compile a project of mine I do
and I am done...
Where did you find it? Perhaps you ask the author of the template why it doesn't work as it should?
The examples use qmake which hides all those nasty things. (If you do not start to digg too deep ;-)
The include trick I mentioned is only needed when you declare a QObject subclass in a cpp file. But that should not normally be needed.
You should not have to care about anything. MOC is an implementation detail that should be abstracted away. It is in qmake, it probably should also for this template, but since I do not work with devc++ I have no idea why it would not.
Allow me the question, why don't you like the dlls? (Just pure curiosity :-)
Does this this thread help?
In the end you "just" have to reconfigure an rebuild Qt to be static.
(But I do not think that you can loose the mingw dll...but you might want to google that)
Well, I am not too fluid with devc++ but from a (german) article it seems that you have to include a custom makefile/qmake step to have devc++ play nice.
Does it have to be DevC++?
In the Qt Software forum a few native Qt4 IDEs have been posted, which probably know how to work with Qt out of the box. (I cannot give you my word that they work since I am a vi/qmake/make user myself :-)
If you like Visual Studio, the comercial edition of Qt 4 for windows has Visual Studio integration available (at a price though).
Hope that helps...
Bookmarks