I don't understand your reasoning why "separate binaries make more sense." I don't recall the previous Pd & Pd-extended ppc / i386 / x86_64 mac builds being a major issue. Same for externals which were also built "fat." Most mac apps are built as "universal" to cover the various transitions: ppc -> intel, 32 -> 64 bit, now intel -> arm.
If you are referring to external support, yes most externals need to be recompiled as fat x86_64 / arm, then they are good to go for the foreseeable future.
On Mar 30, 2022, at 7:06 AM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 02:06:39 -0300 From: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com mailto:porres@gmail.com> To: Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com mailto:info@christofressi.com> Cc: pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] [PD-announce] Pd 0.52-2 released Message-ID: <CAEAsFmghrVft77FiXSKAko=-puxa=Zd=pVL-BNQbujWvZh=kdQ@mail.gmail.com mailto:CAEAsFmghrVft77FiXSKAko=-puxa=Zd=pVL-BNQbujWvZh=kdQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 ?s 11:12, Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com mailto:info@christofressi.com> escreveu:
From my understanding, yes. For that reason, I guess it's not a good idea to provide universal binaries at this point and we should rather ship seperate binaries. Once most externals are available as universal binaries, we might ship Pd as a universal binary as well.
Of course, you can always force apps to run under Rosetta, but I don't
think that's a good user experience.
I agree, separate binaries makes more sense these days.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/