-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A question about this. Given that there's no official way to disable Pulseaudio in Ubuntu, why is it important that the espeak command-line binary work without it? Ubuntu seems to be going full-speed ahead with Pulse as the audio subsystem. I don't see any problem with that, but with this being the case why worry about things working without Pulseaudio? They sure haven't concerned themselves much about that in other parts of the system, i.e. GNOME no longer has a non-pulse volume control which means that you cannot adjust the volume without dropping to the CLI if Pulse is not running. Wav file generation from the command-line binary, if that's what you're worried about, will work with or without Pulseaudio being loaded, and the current situation hardly works when Pulseaudio *is* loaded which is most of the time. Can you clarify this please? On 04/05/2010 08:50 PM, Luke Yelavich wrote: > > Espeak is built against portaudio v19 because it allows the espeak > command-line binary to be used without the need for pulseaudio. Yes I am > aware that portaudio isn't helping, but its better than no espeak > command-line binary working at all unless you run pulse. > > Unfortunately its too late to address this for lucid, but I am seriously > considering building two versions of espeak, one against portaudio, one > against pulse, for lucid+1 and beyond. Ultimately I think espeak should move > to a platform specific solution, i.e use the best liraries for individual > platforms, but thats a lot more work. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAku6ir4ACgkQybLrVJs+Wi6BpgCdF1/qgqHOnIcFBRAy50ySpvve oRYAnA774vNVQ/oWUf7TEExGZbzENiIn =e2GU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Ubuntu-accessibility mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-accessibility
