Re: gnome-orca_3.0.4-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED into experimental
Hi. Not sure how to resolve this. If the debian package updates to the latest git,
it won't matter since the binary pico module won't be included because of license.
If the speech-dispatcher maintainer creates a contrib package containing the pico module, that would be best.
You can try building the latest git and see if your problem with the generic module is fixed.
If so, then it would be worth filing a bug asking the speech-dispatcher maintainer to update their package.
Kenny
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 03:37:43AM +0200, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You're right for upstream. But what about Debian? In my opinion there're
> 2 approaches: of course, I can make things work building git release of
> spd. But it doesn't fix the Debian problem. So maybe it's better to
> solve the bug in the Debian package, or upgrading the Debian package to
> the latest git release, so that the problem is fixed in Debian for the
> distro, and not only for me, advanced or power users.
>
> What do you think of this? My question is more about Debian strategy
> than for myself, because yes I can build but is it interesting for a
> distro?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
>
>
> Le dimanche 31 juillet 2011 à 10:35 +1000, Jason White a écrit :
> > Jean-Philippe MENGUAL <mengualjeanphi@free.fr> wrote:
> > > Actually I did a last test. Here's the speech-dispatcher's log:
> > > http://demo.accelibreinfo.eu (contains espeak-pico.log and
> > > speech-dispatcher.log). In my opinion it shows that the program runs
> > > properly, but there's a problem with pico module. What do you think?
> > > Should I report bug?
> >
> > It appears you are using the generic module rather than the Pico module.
> >
> > There is a Pico module in the Git repository of Speech-Dispatcher. I would
> > suggest upgrading your Speech-Dispatcher to the latest code and testing the
> > Pico module. I don't think Speech-Dispatcher maintainers would be interested
> > in bug reports from an old version that requires you to use the generic module
> > as a work-around.
> >
> >
Reply to: