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

Re: espeakup_0.71-20_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Right now, I don't know where to send this information. The espeakup package as provided on archlinux has portaudio as a dependency and I've been told if espeakup finds pulseaudio installed it will use pulseaudio. For now, I cannot uninstall portaudio to find out if espeakup can use pulseaudio once uninstalled and if espeakup will use pulseaudio after reboot. Probably on installation an installer ought to have the option to use pulseaudio or portaudio for espeakup and in both cases have necessary packages downloaded and installed. For now the espeakup package and I think another that goes with it live in the aur repository on archlinux. I would like to know, if I reinstall espeakup will it use portaudio or pulseaudio while both portaudio and pulseaudio packages are on the machine. If the preference goes automatically to pulseaudio or I have a choice to use portaudio or pulseaudio that will be my best way to go. My reason for any interest in this is that emacspeak apparently does not play nicely with portaudio and prefers pulseaudio.

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Samuel Thibault wrote:

Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 12:01:52
From: Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org>
To: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
Cc: Debian Accessibility Team <debian-accessibility@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: espeakup_0.71-20_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Resent-Date: Fri,  1 Jan 2016 17:02:23 +0000 (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-accessibility@lists.debian.org


Cyril Brulebois, on Fri 01 Jan 2016 17:21:28 +0100, wrote:
Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> (2015-12-26):
 espeakup (1:0.71-20) unstable; urgency=medium
   * espeakup-udeb.sh: Preseed installing MATE desktop by default when espeakup
     is used in d-i.
   * compat: Bump to 9.
   * rules: Clear.
   * patches: Switch to 3.0 patch system.

is leaving changes from 1:0.71-19 aside expected?

Oops.  Actually, yes and no.  The -19 change was meant as a workaround
for Jessie, and the underlying race to be fixed for Stretch, but the
latter hasn't happened yet.  So I have now uploaded a -22 which does
include the -19 changes, so that we have the workaround until we fix the
underlying race.

Having a rewritten
changelog entry showing up in ?d espeakup? was a bit strange so I
thought I'd ask (I don't quite get what's expected to be in the
debian-jessie, debian, and master branches).

debian-jessie is the Jessie branch . The debian branch is not supposed
to exist.

Thanks for the proofread,


Reply to: