[PD] [PD-announce] Gem 0.91-2 bugfix release

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Wed Jan 21 22:04:06 CET 2009

On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> Yeah, you need to compile on 10.4 to make it 10.4 compatible.  It  
>> should also be possible to use -isysroot to compile for 10.4 on  
>> 10.5 if you want to try that.
> the isysroot seems to work ok so far.
>> About .d_fat, I think it is probably best to avoid  
>> that.  .pd_darwin works well with fat/universal binaries and will  
>> cause much less confusion.  I don't think .d_fat been used anywhere  
>> except for 4 objectclasses in extra.  I have been using .pd_darwin  
>> universal binaries, and Thomas Grill has as well.
> do i understand correctly, that there is no real argument against  
> d_fat in the above?
> btw, most universal binaries maintained by thomas musil are d_fat.
> fgmadr
> IOhannes

There are numerous real arguments against d_fat:

- Gem has used .pd_darwin for a long time and it has worked well
- Using .d_fat will cause confusion when people have both a  
Gem.pd_darwin and a Gem.d_fat
- Mac OS X never uses CPU-specific file extensions
- supporting so many file extensions increases load time a lot

and more...



News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is  
publicity.          - Bill Moyers

More information about the Pd-list mailing list