[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

I have no problem with whatever setup you want to run.  My problem is that 
you block progress expecting the rest of us to implement things for your 
very specific setup.  If you would do the work and come up with a solution 
that works for all of us, then it would be a different story.

There are lots of things that broke _my_ way of working with Pd.  But 
sometimes I've recognized that the community is better off because of it, 
so I have accepted the changes, and adapted to them.

As for the script, you would only need to run it whenever you make changes 
to your setup.  Its that simple.  I don't really know how your setup 
works, that's why I can't tell you what to do.  But I can tell you that I 
think there is a very good chance that a simple script will work for you. 
I even offered to write something.  What's the problem?

.hc

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> ohoh, this sounds all too familiar...
>
> apparently i am the only one who is working in a multiuser environment.
> for me, you seem a bit arrogant when denying other people's needs. (but i 
> guess, this sounds arrogant too :-))
> i mean, universities started using unix a long time ago, and even though 
> nobody is interested in a multi-user environment, today you (and you) are 
> using linux, os-X and what else which are based on that.
> i mean, 640k are enough.
>
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 
>
> with "pdrc-mechanism" i was referring to a settings-mechanism rather than the 
> .pdrc-implementation.
> i don't care whether my settings are stored in .pdrc or my registry, as long 
> as i can have a per-host setting and a per-user setting.
>
>> 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 
>
> do i understand you correctly, that i should regenerate my .pdsettings each 
> time i switch machines?
> my workflow is: pd on machineA, ssh to machineB and pd there, leave both 
> instances running and walk to machineC to run pd there. switch between the 3 
> machines randomly; start and stop pd at will.
>
> please tell me, that this is the wrong way to use pd, and since i am the only 
> one who is doing so, it doesn't matter at all.
>
>
>> Let's try to keep this clean.  That's not possible if we try to cater  to 
>> every possibility under the sun.
>
> yep. thus i would suggest to use .dll as the only extension and w32 as the 
> only platform. we wouldn't have problems with "every possibility under the 
> sun" then.
>
> this sounds very ridiculous.
>
> mfg.af.
> IOhannes
>
>
>

 	zen
 	   \
 	    \
 	     \