Re: multiple ITPs - mbrola voices

Hi Samuel, > There is currently some momentum to make espeak-ng able to use mbrola > voices. I am thus uploading them to Debian. Here is the list of ITPs: [snip 30 ITPs] First, thanks for packaging this :) Secondly, am sorry for not seeing this until these hit NEW. For 100% clarity, I've put

Re: multiple ITPs - mbrola voices

Hello, Chris Lamb, le sam. 21 avril 2018 09:02:44 +0100, a ecrit: > Anyway, did you consider using dpkg's support for multiple source > tarballs? Yes. The thing is: I don't expect many updates (if any) of the existing packages: since they basically ship a couple of files in well-established

Re: multiple ITPs - mbrola voices

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:02 AM, Chris Lamb wrote: > Secondly, am sorry for not seeing this until these hit NEW. For 100% > clarity, I've put them "on hold" there for the time being. Chris, are you aware that there are already about 45 mbrola voices packages in Debian, even

Re: multiple ITPs - mbrola voices

Hi Jeremy et al., > It might be a bit late to try to change the source packaging for > all of that. Oh, I don't know it's ever to late to improve something :) Let me play devil's advocate for a second… Whilst I would agree that uploading a package containing all the existing ones for an

Re: multiple ITPs - mbrola voices

Hi, On 21-04-18 23:51, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Well, that becomes a question of taste. We do need separate binary > packages anyway, I don't see how using separate source packages makes it > uglier. Being one that uploads voices as well, I agree with Samuel on this. Note though (and I started a

Re: multiple ITPs - mbrola voices

Chris Lamb, le sam. 21 avril 2018 16:28:49 +0100, a ecrit: > Let me play devil's advocate for a second… Whilst I would agree > that uploading a package containing all the existing ones for an > addition might potentially be wasteful of mirror bandwidth, rsync & > friends would surely be clever