I have no problem with whatever setup you want to run. My problem is that you block progress expecting the rest of us to implement things for your very specific setup. If you would do the work and come up with a solution that works for all of us, then it would be a different story.
There are lots of things that broke _my_ way of working with Pd. But sometimes I've recognized that the community is better off because of it, so I have accepted the changes, and adapted to them.
As for the script, you would only need to run it whenever you make changes to your setup. Its that simple. I don't really know how your setup works, that's why I can't tell you what to do. But I can tell you that I think there is a very good chance that a simple script will work for you. I even offered to write something. What's the problem?
.hc
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
ohoh, this sounds all too familiar...
apparently i am the only one who is working in a multiuser environment. for me, you seem a bit arrogant when denying other people's needs. (but i guess, this sounds arrogant too :-)) i mean, universities started using unix a long time ago, and even though nobody is interested in a multi-user environment, today you (and you) are using linux, os-X and what else which are based on that. i mean, 640k are enough.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
because it breaks _my_ way of working with pd. and even though i am probably the only one who is sharing one home-directory with compiled externals across 4 different platforms, i don't think it is valid to ignore this need. (like in: we don't need a per-host pdrc-mechanism, since hardly anybody will use it)
I think there is a very good chance that you are the only place doing this, plus there are easy workarounds. Going forward, the .pdrc is deprecated, so I don't think we should waste time supporting it. It
with "pdrc-mechanism" i was referring to a settings-mechanism rather than the .pdrc-implementation. i don't care whether my settings are stored in .pdrc or my registry, as long as i can have a per-host setting and a per-user setting.
would not be hard to write a script which will generate the various platform-specific conf files when given a common set of options. Then
do i understand you correctly, that i should regenerate my .pdsettings each time i switch machines? my workflow is: pd on machineA, ssh to machineB and pd there, leave both instances running and walk to machineC to run pd there. switch between the 3 machines randomly; start and stop pd at will.
please tell me, that this is the wrong way to use pd, and since i am the only one who is doing so, it doesn't matter at all.
Let's try to keep this clean. That's not possible if we try to cater to every possibility under the sun.
yep. thus i would suggest to use .dll as the only extension and w32 as the only platform. we wouldn't have problems with "every possibility under the sun" then.
this sounds very ridiculous.
mfg.af. IOhannes
zen \ \ \[D[D[D[D