Hi, On 31 Dec 2025 at 09:59:32, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hello, > > Carles Pina i Estany, le mer. 31 déc. 2025 07:28:33 +0100, a ecrit: > > I'd like to avoid having to run "festival --server". I thought of > > setting up a systemd user unit to try to run automatically for the user. > > > > Is there another better / recommended way? > > That'd probably be the right way nowadays, yes, with socket activation > ideally. I've documented it in the Wiki without socket activation: https://wiki.debian.org/Orca#Voices_using_festival_speech_synthesizer I will improve it (at least some formatting for example) next days. > > I plan to document the steps in, at least: > > We'd rather integrate it into the package, so people don't have anything > to do but install the speech-dispatcher-festival package. I've tried to write the systemd units for socket activation for the Wiki documentation and that would be re-usable to add them in the speech-dispatcher-festival and I found some "blockers" (blockers for me, might be possible though and happy to try again). I haven't written socket activation services before but I found out: I think that the application (festival in that case) should be able to reuse an already opened socket? (systemctl binds 1314 and passes the file descriptor to it?). But festival --server has only a "bind" in a port, so it makes all the socket activation harder. Then I thought that systemd could bind 1314 port, proxy to a second port (1315). And systemd could spawn "festival --server" indicating 1315. This almost worked and I could make it work... but I thought that would not be usable for speech-dispatcher-festival package because we want each "festival --server" running using the active user, so in a multi-user system that would cause problems. Is it correct that we want each user to have their own "festival --server" or one as "festival-server" user would be enough for the system? For the Wiki documentation: since a user choose to enable the festival --server because the user is happy with it: I thought that keeping it simple is better than using socket activation. But I could change it. What do you think? Cheers, -- Carles Pina i Estany https://carles.pina.cat | carles@pina.cat | cpina@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature