We dont update to the 0.21 branch yet as it requires ffmpeg 3.1 and gcc
6 which would break it on exotic archs. mpd might be the only reason
some ppl use exotic stuff, so stay on the safe side for now.
Maintainer timeout.
some existing COMPILER lines with arch restrictions etc. In the usual
case this is now using "COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc base-gcc" on
ports with c++ libraries in WANTLIB.
This is basically intended to be a noop on architectures using clang
as the system compiler, but help with other architectures where we
currently have many ports knocked out due to building with an unsuitable
compiler -
- some ports require c++11/newer so the GCC version in base that is used
on these archirtectures is too old.
- some ports have conflicts where an executable is built with one compiler
(e.g. gcc from base) but a library dependency is built with a different
one (e.g. gcc from ports), resulted in mixing incompatible libraries in the
same address space.
devel/gmp is intentionally skipped as it's on the path to building gcc -
the c++ library there is unused in ports (and not built by default upstream)
so intending to disable building gmpcxx in a future commit.
Changes since 1.2.x include:
- Improvements to the VAD and speech/music classification using an RNN
- Support for ambisonics coding using channel mapping families 2 and 3
- Improvements to stereo speech coding at low bitrate
- Using wideband encoding down to 9 kb/s
- Making it possible to use SILK down to bitrates around 5 kb/s
- Minor quality improvement on tones
- Enabling the spec fixes in RFC 8251 by default
- Security/hardening improvements
Notable bug fixes include:
- Fixes to the CELT PLC
- Bandwidth detection fixes
From my description,
> For gcc, lame has a big "experimental optimizer" section with
> -march=native and other flags that we don't want in bulk builds
> (but might be useful for self builds sometimes). It's controlled by
> --enable-expopt (the default is "none" to disable it),
>
> There is a similar section for clang which is just outside the "expopt"
> block. I think that's a mistake, but I don't want to poke around too much
> as they have other mistakes in their configure script nearby and I don't
> want to go down that rabbit hole ;)
>
> Here's a simple diff to neuter the check.
