[PD] d_fat vs. pd_darwin (was Re: Gem 0.91-2 bugfix release)
Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans at eds.org
Thu Jan 22 23:45:08 CET 2009
On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:12 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> Lots of people have been doing network shares of applications for
>> decades. Who else is using custom file extensions? I've never seen
>
> python, java, ...
Um, Java .jar is the same on all platforms. And JNI files are .jnilib
on Mac OS X regardless of CPU, and .dll on Windows regardless of CPU.
AFAIK, Windows DLLs are .dll regardless of whether they are 32-bit or
64-bit. Even GNU/Linux .so and .a files are the same regardless of CPU.
>> it. NeXTSTEP/Mac OS X has been doing this since '94, and their
>> solution has been fat binaries all with the same extension. That
>> is what universal binaries are today. It's proven to work well.
>
> ok: here is a feature request for fat binaries including linux
> (i386, x86_64) and windows (i386) binaries.
I wasn't saying anything about GNU/Linux or Windows. I was talking
Mac OS X. .pd_darwin is all that is needed. .d_fat, etc cause more
troubles than the fix.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list