[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu

[Miller Puckette]

I think it's better to use file extents than directory structure to
disambiguate this, so that people can distribute "fat" externs within
a single directory.  If we want the suffix to combine both the architecture
and the OS, maybe the best name scheme is

.lin_32
.lin_64
.lin_ppc
.mac_ppc
.mac_64
.msw_32
.msw_64

The original ".pd" business was to disambiguate between pd, jmax, "max 0.26"
and Max/MSP, but now that that's down to only two offerings maybe that's
not an issue right now.

cheers
Miller


On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:06:36AM +0100, geiger wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > OK, I'm liking "pd_win32" more and more.  If Microsoft makes a new dll
> > format that permits bundling, that would be a good moment to change the
> > suffix again...
> 
> Which leads me to a question I always wanted to ask, but never dared to.
> What should be done on platforms that support more than one architecture,
> like linux or macosx ?
> Obvioulsy a xxx.pd_linux from a powerpc machine is not usable on a
> pentium, which makes bundling impossible. One would need a
> pd_linux_368, pd_linux_ppc, etc ...
> 
> G?nter
> 
> >
> > cheers
> > Miller
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:37:34PM +0000, c wrote:
> > > > "win32" would be nice to distinguish between that and "win64". However, if
> > > > both 32-bit and 64-bit executables are likely to be packed into a same
> > > > file, then ".pd_win32" as a suffix wouldn't make that much sense anymore.
> > >
> > > it would make it much easier to figure out which files need to be
> > > deleted when upgrading to pd64, in 2038...
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PD-dev mailing list
> > > PD-dev at iem.at
> > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-dev mailing list
> > PD-dev at iem.at
> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> >