I run the native linux version. I did a pull, which got something. then I did a make of the toolchain, which did nothing. I updated the SDKs. when I built all I got four zip file - two for the mac. I thought the mac builds “fat binaries” now?
The plugin toolchain is still at 2.5.1, I think the fat binaries are a thing when building with Rack and 2.5.2.
1 Like
huh. I thought the library actually uses the toolchain to build. At least for me that’s a great “selling point” - “build just like the real thing”. I wanted to get a good build from the toolchain for submitting to the library.
I wanted to update the sdk for my toolchain; but after looking at it for a bit, decided against it: I’m not fluent in Apple speak and it seems to be more than just changing a filename (the sdk now has combined the Mac stuff and has a different filename, I think peeps have been having trouble with that as well :S). I do wonder about the advantage of having “fat” binaries: to me it is a waste of disk space for those that are still using Intel CPUs or those that have whatever Apple calls their Arm CPUs. SSDs really don’t like being full (and, AFAIK, those Apple ones can’t be replaced…). I dealt with that kind of binaries when the fruit company jumped from Power PCs to Intel… and I wasn’t very happy with the size of the things (hence fat, I guess).
well, I know on my computer the size of executables is awfully small compared to other things. I’m not so worried about it.
My understanding is the rack exe is fat but plugins are still per arch
3 Likes