[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BRLTTY and a flite module package?


I vote for the first approach. As a deaf-blind user I have no interest in 
speech and certainly don't want BRLTTY bloated with a 6MB speech module.


On Thu, 20 May 2004, Mario Lang wrote:

> Hi.
> Version 3.5 of BRLTTY will have a speech driver module for Festival Lite.
> This module links dynamically against the quite large (6MB or so) festival
> lite library.  Now, I am pondering how to go about this new module. I basically
> see two approach:
> 1. Create a new binary package (for example, brltty-flite) and only put
>    the driver module /lib/brltty/libbrlttysfl.so) (plus policy-required
>    files, or course) in it. This package should Depend on the same
>    version of BRLTTY as it was compiled from.  A user wishing to use
>    the Festival Lite driver module would apt-get install brltty-flite,
>    and get BRLTTY + the required (large) library for speech synthesis.
>    However, the drawback is that the package brltty-flite would only contain
>    a very little binary object (7kb or so).  Given that we actually
>    want to keep the number of binary packages in the archive at a minimum,
>    that is quite a drawback.
> 2. Do not split off the festival lite module.  This has the drawback
>    that every user, no matter if she is interested in speech at all, or wants
>    to use Festival Lite as a backend in particular, would need to
>    download the quite huge Festival Lite library package to satisfy
>    the dependency.  Given that I think most BRLTTY users do not really care
>    about speech support currently, this seems like quite a drawback.  OTOH,
>    the small 7kb object file would stay in the main package, and we wouldn't
>    bloat the archive with yet another small binary package.
> Any opinions?

John J. Boyer; Executive Director, Chief Software Developer
Computers to Help People, Inc.
825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703

Reply to: