[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Thomas Grill wrote:
>>
>> After going thru all of the disparate proposals, I think that the 
>> simplest is best:  why not just one extension for all platforms?  This

just some random remarks on this (the main reason why i reply to the 
mail, comes at the end):

because it breaks _my_ way of working with pd.
and even though i am probably the only one who is sharing one 
home-directory with compiled externals across 4 different platforms, i 
don't think it is valid to ignore this need. (like in: we don't need a 
per-host pdrc-mechanism, since hardly anybody will use it)

>> 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 

i guess this is valid from the packager's point of view. however, there 
are non-packages fighting with compilers too.


> 
> 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)

i have to admit, that i prefer 3 character extensions (being a DOSosaur).
thus i would suggest using .pdc or .pdo (just like in .pyc or .pyo)

> 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)

i like this idea.


mf.asdr.
IOhannes