On Jan 23, 2009, at 3:26 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
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 pd_darwin. 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)
I don't know in-depth details on this issue on GNU/Linux. If you feel
it is necessary there, I am fine with it.
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)
Sounds great to me! :D
OR
- 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.
Well, I have experienced them, and tried to outline them here, I wish
I could make them clearer. It just seems odd to me that non-OSX users
are trying to dictate how to handle OSX issues to someone who has been
coding for NeXTSTEP/Mac OS X since 1995.
.hc
cheers...
gmydsr IOhannes
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to
realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either
change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams