On 24.06.20 16:00, Dan Wilcox wrote: > >> On Jun 24, 2020, at 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> so running on all >> architectures ever supported by OSX (modulo system libraries...). > > To be pedantic, it has been officially "macOS" for some years now. The > upcoming version will be 11.0, so "OS X" will no longer be relevant anyway.
of course i used "OSX" on purpose, as this was from a historic pov. iirc, most architectures in my list have been supported by the (historic) OSX rather than the (new) macOS. it was not meant as a generic meant at as a generic rant about apple's naming scheme (though of course, i kinda accepted that interpretation too). > >> why not just add arm64 to that list? > > I was only musing that the "Universal 2" format *might* be new. I haven't > read any of the details about it yet. Hopefully it's the same thing with just > the new architecture. indeed. after reading up (somewhere between writing the first and the second part of my email), it's concerning that they chose to label it differently. > I don't often feel so welcome when the platform I'm explicitly contributing a > good amount of time toward is often bashed by people who don't prefer to use > it. sorry. if my post came across like this, it was really unintentional. (on re-reading, i don't find my email especially snarky; except for the first line alluding to iOS as their mainline system) >> so the only way to produce fat binaries (that include mor ethan x86_&4 >> and amd64) is to have multiple build systems (parts of them unsupported >> by now) and combine the artifacts into a single binary in a second step. > > I think it's better to have separate builds, which we already have. It's > already hard enough, especially concerning Tcl/Tk frameworks, that I do not > think making "one app bundle to rule them all" is even practical... feasible > perhaps, but not sustainable. oh totally. i was only trying to explain why i think that apple might not need to put extra hurdles in the way of developers by inventing a new file format, as they have easier ways to nudge people towards supporting only recent architectures. but of course, if *we* - as a bunch of open source devs - are able to setup CI systems that compile for multiple target architectures and OS-versions, it's to be expected that commercial software companies can do the same. gfmddras IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
