[Sugar-devel] csound or olpcsound (was Re: hello and how can IJoin?)

[David Farning]

Very cool - Anything you can push upstream is a win for everyone:)

david

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM, victor <Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie> wrote:
> Yes, originally this was an XO-fedora only thing. However the
> olpcsound 'lightweight' option is actually in the upstream sources
> (as a build option). Currently it might be the case that it is i*86
> only (not sure how well it would build on other archs). So if
> packagers are interested in this, they can avail of that option.
>
> Debian packages of Csound are being maintained by one of our
> team, so they should be kept reasonably updated (as the Debian
> cycle permits).
>
> Regards
>
> Victor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonas Smedegaard" <dr at jones.dk>
> To: <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] csound or olpcsound (was Re: hello and how can
> IJoin?)
>
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:37:17PM +0000, victor wrote:
>>>> Actually, your expertise would be needed to get the csound packages
>>>> into the distributions. Currently we have the standard Csound package
>>>> [1] and the olpcsound [2] package in Fedora. We should decide which
>>>> package we should move forward.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=76556
>>>> [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=77007
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good, I am glad to dive in straightaway. This is my opinion:
>>>
>>>Csound-5.03 [1] is very old, there is actually a csound-5.07,
>>>which is much newer. Olpcsound[2] is based on 5.08, the
>>>last 'stable' version of  libcsound-5.1.
>>>
>>>The difference between the two packages is that olpcsound is
>>>cut-down and adapted to the requirements of OLPC/XO. Now
>>>these might not be the same requirements of sugar (as a platform
>>>independent OS), but is smaller and lighter. It does not have any
>>>of the CPU intensive DSP code fro spectral processing etc.
>>
>> Interesting. I was unaware of that optimization issue.
>>
>> Would it perhaps make sense for Distributions to generically offer
>> multiple variants of the csound libraries, with and without
>> CPU-intensive processing?
>>
>> If so, the best approach is to improve upstream CSound build routines to
>> compile these library variants, differently named so they can be
>> installed concurrently, rather than packagers needing to compile
>> everything multiple times and provide conflicting packages.
>>
>>
>> As a much simpler alternative, if you could isolate the patches and/or
>> compile flags needed for XO-friendly builds, then packagers could add
>> them, either just commented out or enabled through some environment
>> flag, for easy package rebuilding by (sub)distros aiming specifically at
>> low-end hardware.
>>
>>
>>
>> (Your discussion seems Fedora/Redhat-centric to me.  Tell me if I should
>> simply keep silent with these more general comments)
>>
>>
>>  - Jonas
>>
>> - --
>> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
>> * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>>
>>   [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkmS740ACgkQn7DbMsAkQLh8zACcCkWi+7EJO0qs1G0UXXZ8ER1l
>> HYYAn1tJdPz2WfRiphFiiqYzIGRDvqVL
>> =mlsN
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>