[PD] d_fat vs. pd_darwin (was Re: Gem 0.91-2 bugfix release)

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Jan 22 20:39:19 CET 2009

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:12 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Lots of people have been doing network shares of applications for  
> decades.  Who else is using custom file extensions?  I've never seen  

python, java, ...

> it.  NeXTSTEP/Mac OS X has been doing this since '94, and their  
> solution has been fat binaries all with the same extension.  That is  
> what universal binaries are today.  It's proven to work well.

ok: here is a feature request for fat binaries including linux (i386, 
x86_64) and windows (i386) binaries.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20090122/4f394cd5/attachment.bin>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list