Thomas Grill wrote:
After going thru all of the disparate proposals, I think that the simplest is best: why not just one extension for all platforms? This
just some random remarks on this (the main reason why i reply to the mail, comes at the end):
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)
Almost all packages which are compiled for distribution are done on on the processor/platform that they are targeted for. So its relatively straightforward to package the compiled files separately for each platform. This is how its currently done with Pd and Pd-extended, for
i guess this is valid from the packager's point of view. however, there are non-packages fighting with compilers too.
ok, from the point of current practice that's ok as well.... it's much better than the current situation. What could the unified extension be? .pdext? (i don't like underscores in extensions, i have to admit)
i have to admit, that i prefer 3 character extensions (being a DOSosaur). thus i would suggest using .pdc or .pdo (just like in .pyc or .pyo)
Later, there would still be the possibility to introduce something like .i686-linux.pdext as a specialization that has precedence before .pdext (if one doesn't care about . in externals' names)
i like this idea.
mf.asdr. IOhannes