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

Stefano D'Angelo zanga.mail at gmail.com
Thu Sep 13 17:04:35 UTC 2007

2007/9/13, Krzysztof Foltman <wdev at foltman.com>:
> 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.

Better more information than less... an optimization string looks right to me.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list