I think the d_fat and d_ppc business is only necessary for folks who are maintaining backward compatibility to 10.3 which can't read d_fat files. I think it's a good thing to try to keep things running on older machines since lots of Pd users can't afford to buy the newest ones. However, it's geting hard for me to stay 10.3 compatible as the only remaining 10.3 machine around here is getting sick.
cheers Miller
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 05:45:08PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:12 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: Lots of people have been doing network shares of applications for
decades. Who else is using custom file extensions? I've never seenpython, java, ...
Um, Java .jar is the same on all platforms. And JNI files are .jnilib
on Mac OS X regardless of CPU, and .dll on Windows regardless of CPU.
AFAIK, Windows DLLs are .dll regardless of whether they are 32-bit or
64-bit. Even GNU/Linux .so and .a files are the same regardless of CPU.it. NeXTSTEP/Mac OS X has been doing this since '94, and their
solution has been fat binaries all with the same extension. That
is what universal binaries are today. It's proven to work well.ok: here is a feature request for fat binaries including linux
(i386, x86_64) and windows (i386) binaries.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..hc
Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list