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-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote: > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 02:06:39 -0300 > From: Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com <mailto:por...@gmail.com>> > To: Christof Ressi <i...@christofressi.com <mailto:i...@christofressi.com>> > Cc: pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at> > Subject: Re: [PD] [PD-announce] Pd 0.52-2 released > Message-ID: > <CAEAsFmghrVft77FiXSKAko=-puxa=Zd=pVL-BNQbujWvZh=k...@mail.gmail.com > <mailto:CAEAsFmghrVft77FiXSKAko=-puxa=Zd=pVL-BNQbujWvZh=k...@mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Em ter., 29 de mar. de 2022 ?s 11:12, Christof Ressi <i...@christofressi.com > <mailto:i...@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 <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
