[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu
Thomas Grill
gr at grrrr.org
Mon Jan 9 13:28:26 CET 2006
Hi all,
picking up that thread again, so that i won't be forgotten before some
tracker patch is submitted....
>
> After going thru all of the disparate proposals, I think that the
> simplest is best: why not just one extension for all platforms? This
> is how programs like Photoshop do it, for example. As for the fat
> library, that is an interesting idea, but that could be done with
> named directories as well. And since this would be a rare case, it
> seems that making the common cases simpler would be preferred.
>
> Almost all packages which are compiled for distribution are done on on
> the processor/platform that they are targeted for. So its relatively
> straightforward to package the compiled files separately for each
> platform. This is how its currently done with Pd and Pd-extended, for
> example
>
ok, from the point of current practice that's ok as well.... it's much
better than the current situation.
What could the unified extension be? .pdext? (i don't like underscores
in extensions, i have to admit)
Later, there would still be the possibility to introduce something like
.i686-linux.pdext as a specialization that has precedence before .pdext
(if one doesn't care about . in externals' names)
best greetings,
Thomas
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list