Re: LEG: Optimisation and porting - assembly
Hi Rafael,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:45:05AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> >praat 5.3.16-1 0 E E
> >
> >speech analysis and synthesis; asm in embedded codecs/libs
> >(mad/mp3, flac, gsl, portaudio); no direct porting needed [...]
>
> I looked at the status of the praat package. The upstream tarball
> of Praat include the sources of the following libraries: espeak,
> flac, glpk, gsl, mad/mp3, and portaudio. All of them are packaged
> in Debian so that the Praat executable could, in rpinciple, be
> linked against the *.so files instead of building their own versions
> of the libraries and linking against the resulting *.a. However,
> five out of six of those libraries have special adaptations written
> by the Praat authors, the only exception being gsl.
Thanks for your analysis. I wonder whether it might be feasible for
Praat upstream to integrate the adaptations to the according upstream
libraries. If I where the Praat author I would really try to avoid
maintaining separate code for common libraries. So perhaps the code
analysis for assembly code might have some positive side effekt to step
by step getting rid of these patches and stick to the original upstream
libraries.
> This makes the requested porting almost impossible to accomplish. I
> will see what it is possible to do regarding the gsl library, but it
> will probably involve the tweaking of the upstream makefiles (praat
> has no such thing as autotools or cmake...) and this may be a
> maintenance burden.
I admit I do not really rise my hand to volunteer writing a portable
build system for praat but from a very quick look onto the code it does
not look that hard to port it to autotools or cmake. If upstream might
consider a patch for the build system this could even reduce the
maintenance work inside Debian in the long term.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: