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

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> 
> 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.

but i was talking about architectures _and_ platforms (the later being 
freebsd, linux, irix, windows, darwin, ...)

i would like to see a naming convention that is valid on all these 
platforms and where i can have files live side by side on a network 
share. (e.g. .so is bad because i cannot distinguish between linux/i386, 
linux/ppc, linux/x86_64 and eventually osx/fat.

if d_fat is deprecated, i don't have any more problems with it than with 
pd_darwin.
however, if it _is_ deprecated, then l_i386 and l_ia64 should be 
deprecated as well, and i do see problems with .pd_linux (there is no 
fat binary on linux afaik)

and the most confusing thing i can imagine here is having .dll (native), 
.pd_darwin (custom) and .l_ia64 (custom, but different).

i think there are 2 possibilities:
- use native extensions on all platforms (eg .dylib instead of .d_fat)
OR
- use custom and consistent extensions on all platforms (either d_fat or 
pd_msw; the latter not solving my linux problem, the former solving them)

i still don't see _any_ trouble caused by d_fat with respect to 
pd_darwin, apart from pure reactionary movements.

cheers...


gmydsr
IOhannes
-------------- 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/20090123/070d0d25/attachment.bin>