Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
On Saturday 09 Feb 2013 à 17:12:04 (+1100), Peter Drysdale wrote:
> Dear Users of Festival-doc,
Hi,
Yes, I still exist! :) I follow your threads. Sorry to be quiet but life is strange
in various aspects, including computing. And as I see some very technical and
efficient debates take place between you, I don't react.
But I don't stay far. :)
> As one of the uploaders for festival and speech-tools I wish to start the
> discussion about this recently
> orphaned package.
>
> I note that upstream has not updated the documentation since version 1.4 of
> festival ( we are now up to version 2.1).
> Is it really appropriate to keep this doc package in Debian? Should it be
> removed entirely?
>
> I have noticed that this documentation is very out of date upstream.
> I would not be interested in assisting with this orphan package unless
> someone persuades me otherwise.
> Do the other maintainer/uploaders for festival have an opinion?
Theorically I could adopt such package to include it in festival. However if
i!'s obsolete, it's likely not a good ide. Nevertheless, does it mean that no
doc exists for festival which is updated? If no, I think we can let this
package orphan. If one exists, I think we should replace the contents of
festival-doc with this new updated doc. Another question: isn't there any recent
doc in the festival package? If yes, we can change control and rules files to
generate festival and festival-doc packages from festival source.
What's the exact situation of the doc upstream? Missing any up-to-date doc?
In the source? In another place? I think the answer determines how to deal with
the debian package.
> Looking forward to hearing your comments.
>
> Should we be supporting some other information e.g. including a short file
> with some
> links to various sources of information about festival (possibly including
> link to this old manual)
> from within the festival package itself?
If absolutely no doc exists, yes, I think it's a good idea to add a README.Debian.
If the doc is really not relevant, yes it should be removed I think.
Sincerely,
> best regards,
> Peter
Reply to: