> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:52 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@iem.at> wrote: > > On 04/08/2016 10:29 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > >> Then, cyclone does not come as a library for a long time, and "Scope~" is > >> not part of a "-lib" > > > > but it is! > > it is part of a library named "Scope~.pd_linux" which contains a single > > object "Scope~". > > He's building 'scope~.pd_linux'. With a symlink 'Scope~.pd_linux' and > the alias in the C code, wouldn't that be all right? > > > > mdsf > > IOhannes > > >
Hello, I'll chime in here because I've been working on this cyclone update as well (Alexandre, hop in here if I'm wrong about any of this). To my knowledge, there isn't any symlinking going on in the build process. I'm using Ubuntu on my machine and I just built it myself and all I get out for scope is scope~.pd_linux. All references to Scope has been changed to scope in Makefile and the source (sickle/Scope.c) got changed to sickle/scope.c. There's no symlink to scope~.pd_linux at all. Do we want to change the Makefile to build a symlink to the built scope~ (and also, what are the reasons for doing so)? Also. is there a symlink equivalent for Windows machines? I'll be honest, I'm not really familiar with Makefile building beyond the very basic stuff (I didn't even know you could make symlinks in Makefiles for instance)... Derek ===================== Derek Kwan www.derekxkwan.com _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
