On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:41:54PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:13:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > Probably just > > bumping the binary package version like we do for backports or binNMUs > > would be enough. > > Definitely. > > > A good start would be to both support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=custom for > > generic performance-oriented rebuidls and > > DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-march=native for for the -march=native thing. > > > > Then again, just testing whether it actually makes a difference for > > end-user applications would be useful as well. > > I made a mental note to suggest a GSoC project for Debian Med to some > benchmarking between packages with and without manual optimisation. If > another mentor from Debian Science this would be probably very helpful > and could stretch the project to Debian Science.
I think it's useful, but for a GSoC project I would expect at least trying to get some more general support in a couple of packages or even to evaluate a DKMS-like rebuilder. Benchmarking could be done for debian-med packages (I would volunteer to co-mentor if the student looks at debichem packages as well), but for actual changes, most of the low-hanging numerical libraries are in debian-science (I assume), so that one should also be included. Michael
