[PD] d_fat vs. pd_darwin (was Re: Gem 0.91-2 bugfix release)
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Fri Jan 23 09:26:12 CET 2009
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
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)
- 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Pd-list