Patches item #3521816, was opened at 2012-04-26 19:25 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by eighthave You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3521816...

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: puredata Group: bugfix Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts () Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Setting externals file extension, check for ANDROID platform

Initial Comment: The Android GCC toolchain #defines linux, so the Android specific branch was never being hit. Moving the check above Linux fixes it.

Before this patch external extensions ".l_i386" and ".pd_linux" are checked for on Android. This patch will accept either ".l_arm" or ".pd_linux", so the externals built by PdCore will still work.

It doesn't address the issue of Android x86.

Should probably add a check for arm vs x86 architecture too, but I haven't been able to find documentation of the architecture macros.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave)

Date: 2012-04-29 10:36

Message: Personally, I think its a waste your time and mine. Its been discussed, check out the archives for the problems it causes. I've long since moved on. We should be putting this energy solving the issue in this tracker, rather than beating the .d_ppc/.d_fat dead horse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoelnig) Date: 2012-04-28 10:16

Message: thanks for the respone.

ad #1: very few people using .d_ppc/.d_fat is not really creating any "problems", is it?

ad #2: will do (though afaict, PdX has a patch that actively removes the functionality; should i create a patch that re-adds the extensions or should i modify (eventually remove) the patch that erroneously removes the extensions?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave) Date: 2012-04-27 19:32

Message: In response to #1: very few people are using .d_ppc and .d_fat files with Pd vanilla.

and #2: patches welcome

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoelnig) Date: 2012-04-27 08:54

Message: <flames> "Those file extension have a lot of issues as they are, for example, no other program for Darwin/MacOSX uses per-arch file extension"...what exactly is the "lot of issues" here? no other program for Darwin/MacOSX is called "Pd", and still this is no issue. </flames> <moreflames> if Pd-extended ignores binary files that it could happily load and by doing so breaks compatibility with Pd-vanilla, i would say this is a bug in Pd-extended. </moreflames>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave) Date: 2012-04-27 07:36

Message: What about just defining '.so' has a possibility if __linux__, __FreeBSD__, __FreeBSD_kernel__, __OpenBSD__ are defined, then people can choose to manage the architecture in their own way.

Those file extension have a lot of issues as they are, for example, no other program for Darwin/MacOSX uses per-arch file extensions: they use universal binaries. For this reason , Pd-extended on Mac OS X only uses .pd_darwin and universal binaries and ignores .d_fat and .d_ppc. Also, Pd's .l_ia64 does not actually mean ia64 arch but instead amd64/x86_64, so that file extension is just wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3521816...