[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jan 9, 2006, at 7:48 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> 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)

I think there is a very good chance that you are the only place doing  
this, plus there are easy workarounds.  Going forward, the .pdrc is  
deprecated, so I don't think we should waste time supporting it.  It  
would not be hard to write a script which will generate the various  
platform-specific conf files when given a common set of options. Then  
this would allow you to move off of the .pdrc.  I have been thinking  
about doing it for the Pd-extended conf files anyway...

Let's try to keep this clean.  That's not possible if we try to cater  
to every possibility under the sun.

.hc

>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

                   ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!