[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