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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Cyril Brulebois <email@example.com>
Cc: Debian Accessibility Team <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: espeakup_0.71-20_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:02:23 +0000 (UTC)
Cyril Brulebois, on Fri 01 Jan 2016 17:21:28 +0100, wrote:
Debian FTP Masters <email@example.com> (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
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
Thanks for the proofread,