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

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Thu Jan 22 23:45:08 CET 2009

On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> 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, ...

Um, Java .jar is the same on all platforms.  And JNI files are .jnilib  
on Mac OS X regardless of CPU, and .dll on Windows regardless of CPU.   
AFAIK, Windows DLLs are .dll regardless of whether they are 32-bit or  
64-bit.  Even GNU/Linux .so and .a files are the same regardless of CPU.

>> 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.

I wasn't saying anything about GNU/Linux or Windows.  I was talking  
Mac OS X.  .pd_darwin is all that is needed.  .d_fat, etc cause more  
troubles than the fix.



Access to computers should be unlimited and total.  - the hacker ethic

More information about the Pd-list mailing list