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>
To: Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com>
Cc: 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 ?s 11:12, Christof Ressi <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
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com