On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Yeah, you need to compile on 10.4 to make it 10.4 compatible. It
should also be possible to use -isysroot to compile for 10.4 on
10.5 if you want to try that.the isysroot seems to work ok so far.
About .d_fat, I think it is probably best to avoid
that. .pd_darwin works well with fat/universal binaries and will
cause much less confusion. I don't think .d_fat been used anywhere
except for 4 objectclasses in extra. I have been using .pd_darwin
universal binaries, and Thomas Grill has as well.do i understand correctly, that there is no real argument against
d_fat in the above?btw, most universal binaries maintained by thomas musil are d_fat.
fgmadr IOhannes
There are numerous real arguments against d_fat:
- Gem has used .pd_darwin for a long time and it has worked well
- Using .d_fat will cause confusion when people have both a
Gem.pd_darwin and a Gem.d_fat
- Mac OS X never uses CPU-specific file extensions
- supporting so many file extensions increases load time a lot
and more...
.hc
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is
publicity. - Bill Moyers