I think pd64 is fine - however, it would be wise when distributing it to
emphasize that it's 64 bit samples, not 64 bit architecture.
I'm pretty sure people will get confused by that.
cheers
Miller
On 7/25/23 08:32, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
so now that Pd-0.54 is out, I wonder whether we have settled on "pd64"
being the "official" name for double-precision binaries.
the question mostly arises from an flext issue [54] that i recently
raised: flext can be built as a dynamic library, which is called
libflext-pd.so (for Pd obviously). since flext can only handle a
single floatsize, we would need a different dylib name for the
double-precision variant of Pd, and i suggested libflext-pd64.so
as thomas has rightfully pointed out, this would only make sense if
"pd64" is indeed the agreed-on name of the double-precision Pd binary.
so: is it?
afaict there has been rough consensus about this from all vocal
parties; however miller has not said anything beyond the initial
"Pdouble".
mgfasdr
IOhannes
PS: this is really about the names of the executable files
(/usr/bin/pd64, .../pd/bin/pd64.exe, .../pd/bin/pd64.dll).
i think this *can* be kept distinct from the "marketing name" (e.g.
what is announced on websites), but of course it need not be.
PPS: and yes, as indicated in previous mails, Debian now ships a
puredata64 package which includes a /usr/bin/pd64 binary; which is all
my doing (so you know who is to blame). while this sets a precedent, I
don't think it is too late to change the name (even though I would
rather not :-))
[54] https://github.com/grrrr/flext/issues/54
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
