On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 21:57 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 03/26/2015 09:49 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > Hi > > > > Attached patch exhibits different behavior depending on where and how > > [routeOSC] was built. It seems pre-built binaries from the Debian > > repositories insert an empty symbol (see attached patch) in the output, > > but only on amd64 and armhf (Raspberry Pi), but not i386. Also, when I > > compile routeOSC myself on those platforms (amd64, armhf), the result > > shows the expected behavior. > > > > routeOSC from Pd-extended works as expected on all platforms. > > > > It looks to me as if the way the external is compiled is responsible for > > the differences. Among others I'm in charge of the package pd-osc in the > > Debian repository, but I don't have a clue how to track such a problem. > > That is why I am asking the list. Any clues? > > are you sure?
No (after checking again) > i think that this is a problem of the actually installed versions of > pd-osc (maybe you are confusing the current debian package version > "0.2-1" with the prior "0.1-2"?) Exactly. I tricked myself by launching 'pd' (pointing to /usr/local/bin/pd) instead of '/usr/bin/pd' on a i386 Wheezy machine, and made myself think it must be related to the architecture. Actually, also on the i386 Wheezy machine I get wrong behavior with pd-osc 0.1-2. It is really only a matter of the version pd-osc. As you said. > in any case, i'm running sid/amd64 and get: > OUTPUT: 99 > EXPECTED: YES Thanks for testing. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
