A common plugin repository (WAS:Re: [LAD] ladspa qa?)

Krzysztof Foltman wdev at foltman.com
Thu Sep 13 16:36:34 UTC 2007

Stefano D'Angelo wrote:

>>> I'd say package format (.rpm, .deb, etc), OS distribution (Ubuntu,
>>> OpenSUSE, etc.), CPU architecture (ix86, x86_64, etc.)
>> I guess one could think of adding the subarchitecture (as in: p3, p4)
>> and optimization target too. The difference between subarchitecture and
>> optimization target would be same as difference between -mcpu and -mtune
>> gcc options.
> Well... yes. But I don't know if it would work well with a regular
> package manager (in terms of packaging work, updates, etc.).

You may be right - it would indeed complicate packaging, and the speed
gain is not that spectacular.

Maybe providing the list of optimization options (-O, -mcpu, -mtune,
-ffast-math etc.) as a string would be kind of beneficial (letting the
advanced users know if they want to compile the packages on their own).
Or maybe nobody would use it. I really can't tell.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list