Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
Here is an updated status of the bug: There is a git repository in [1] with festival-doc. I have added myself as a maintainer, and I will maintain both festival-doc and speech-tools-doc until they are merged into festival and speech-tools (which I help maintaining as part of the Text To Speech group). Regarding festival-doc, a patch is ready to generate HTML and PS documentation from festival sources, so I have removed festival-doc from the src:festival-doc debian/control and debian/rules files. Regarding speech-tools-doc, due to the doc++ to doxygen change, my current and almost final patch states: 226 changed files with 16087 additions and 11335 deletions. I have submitted this patch upstream, and they gave me a big thank you (they could not build speech-tools documentation either). Upstream said they are going to merge it and include it in their next release, hopefully soon. All this said, this is my first adoption of an orphaned package, so if I have forgotten any step, or done any wrong thing please feel free to correct me. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=tts/festival-doc.git;a=summary 2013/8/3 Sergio Oller > I will try to push this bug forward: > > festival-doc source package builds two packages: festival-doc and > speech-tools-doc. Once we have a build system working for both packages, I > suggest Jean-Philippe intends to adopt festival-doc source package (or the > TTS team adopts it, I don't know :-) ). > > Here is the status of building both packages from festival and > speech-tools sources: > > Regarding festival-doc: > === > I have managed to successfully build festival-doc from the festival source > package using texi2html. > As Ryan Kavanagh pointed to Peter, there is a transition from texi2html to > texinfo [1]. Until I have properly replaced texi2html with texinfo I will > not commit any patch unless you prefer to have a texi2html temporal > solution. > > I have to read how to replace texi2html with texinfo, I hope it is not > going to be hard, given that many people may have done this transition > before :-) > > > Regarding speech-tools-doc: > = > Building speech-tools-doc from src:speech-tools is not trivial. > > Current issues: > -- > > - It depends on Doc++ (an automatic documentation program not updated > since 2003 [2] and removed from debian repository [3]). > - It depends on jade which seems to be being replaced by openjade because > (according to jade's changelog [4] and jade's website [5]) it has not > received any upstream update since 1999. > - The manual is in DocBook V3.0 and quite integrated with Doc++ specific > XML output format. > > > Proposed solution: (I am working on it now) > -- > - Replace Doc++ with Doxygen. Doxygen is quite standard for source > documentation nowadays. It can provide output in HTML and PDF formats and > initially it was partially based on Doc++ [6], so its syntax is quite > similar. > - Replace the sgml manual with markdown pages. Doxygen is markdown > friendly and this change would allow us to integrate the manual with the > source code documentation and build everything together (with links from > the manual to the source documentation, etc...). > > * Pros: > - The proposed solution would drop all documentation dependencies (doc++, > jade, perl...) and only leave doxygen, which seems to have good support and > is a very active project with many users. > - The Makefile will be much simpler. > - Markdown format is extensively used in many projects and very easy to > read in raw format. > > * Cons: > - Converting sgml pages to markdown may lead to a patch of considerable > size. I will try to estimate its size ASAP. > > > > > As always, alternative solutions, comments, likes/dislikes are very > welcome :-) > > > References: > === > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg01580.html > [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/docpp/files/doc%2B%2B/ > [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/doc++.html > [4] > http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/j/jade/jade_1.2.1-47.3_changelog > [5] http://www.jclark.com/jade/ > [6] http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/#acknowledgements > >
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
I will try to push this bug forward: festival-doc source package builds two packages: festival-doc and speech-tools-doc. Once we have a build system working for both packages, I suggest Jean-Philippe intends to adopt festival-doc source package (or the TTS team adopts it, I don't know :-) ). Here is the status of building both packages from festival and speech-tools sources: Regarding festival-doc: === I have managed to successfully build festival-doc from the festival source package using texi2html. As Ryan Kavanagh pointed to Peter, there is a transition from texi2html to texinfo [1]. Until I have properly replaced texi2html with texinfo I will not commit any patch unless you prefer to have a texi2html temporal solution. I have to read how to replace texi2html with texinfo, I hope it is not going to be hard, given that many people may have done this transition before :-) Regarding speech-tools-doc: = Building speech-tools-doc from src:speech-tools is not trivial. Current issues: -- - It depends on Doc++ (an automatic documentation program not updated since 2003 [2] and removed from debian repository [3]). - It depends on jade which seems to be being replaced by openjade because (according to jade's changelog [4] and jade's website [5]) it has not received any upstream update since 1999. - The manual is in DocBook V3.0 and quite integrated with Doc++ specific XML output format. Proposed solution: (I am working on it now) -- - Replace Doc++ with Doxygen. Doxygen is quite standard for source documentation nowadays. It can provide output in HTML and PDF formats and initially it was partially based on Doc++ [6], so its syntax is quite similar. - Replace the sgml manual with markdown pages. Doxygen is markdown friendly and this change would allow us to integrate the manual with the source code documentation and build everything together (with links from the manual to the source documentation, etc...). * Pros: - The proposed solution would drop all documentation dependencies (doc++, jade, perl...) and only leave doxygen, which seems to have good support and is a very active project with many users. - The Makefile will be much simpler. - Markdown format is extensively used in many projects and very easy to read in raw format. * Cons: - Converting sgml pages to markdown may lead to a patch of considerable size. I will try to estimate its size ASAP. As always, alternative solutions, comments, likes/dislikes are very welcome :-) References: === [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg01580.html [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/docpp/files/doc%2B%2B/ [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/doc++.html [4] http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/j/jade/jade_1.2.1-47.3_changelog [5] http://www.jclark.com/jade/ [6] http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/#acknowledgements
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
In light of my desire to retire from the list of festival and speech-tools uploaders I shall not be able to act on this bug. best regards, Peter Drysdale On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Peter Drysdale wrote: > In light of discussions with Ryan Kavanagh any solution to building > festival-doc from the main > festival source package should not use texi2html but it replacement. > > This mail is a noteholder in the bug log for festival-doc orphan bug. > > I would like to thank Ryan for his contribution to understanding a > solution to the constraints of building > festival-doc from festival source. > > best regards, > Peter Drysdale >
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
In light of discussions with Ryan Kavanagh any solution to building festival-doc from the main festival source package should not use texi2html but it replacement. This mail is a noteholder in the bug log for festival-doc orphan bug. I would like to thank Ryan for his contribution to understanding a solution to the constraints of building festival-doc from festival source. best regards, Peter Drysdale
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
Peter Drysdale, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:35:18 +1100, a écrit : > Sergio's feedback inspired me to push forward in looking at the implementation > scenarios > for building the doc binary packages from our source package. Our existing > texinfo build > dependency should make it easy enough to push out any of:- info, HTML or pdf > formats. > > I am happy to do a patch after wheezy thaws. :-) > > Further discussion in the coming month on a11y will determine the format/s. Well I'd say that provided it's a separate package, just building all formats will be fine. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130212134501.gd6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
Dear All, Sergio's feedback inspired me to push forward in looking at the implementation scenarios for building the doc binary packages from our source package. Our existing texinfo build dependency should make it easy enough to push out any of:- info, HTML or pdf formats. I am happy to do a patch after wheezy thaws. :-) Further discussion in the coming month on a11y will determine the format/s. best regards, Peter
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
Dear all, I will try to give my two cents, although I'm not an a11y expert :-) 2013/2/10 Peter Drysdale > Dear Maintainer/Uploaders of festival and Users of festival-docs, > > To clarify the situation. festival-doc currently contains a html and ps > (Postscript) version of > the "Festival Manual". The version number is 1.4.2 and dates from 25th > July 2001. > > CMU (the current employer of Prof. Alan Black - one of the original > authors of festival) > has an online version of the manual version number 1.4.3 and dated 27th > December 2002. > > CSTR at University of Edinburgh - (the University where festival was > originally written) has an > online version of the manual version number 1.4.0 and dated 17th July 1999. > > No later copies of the main content of "Festival Manual" appear to have > been published. > > The current Debian festival (not festival-docs) package ships a copy of > "Festival Manual" > as part of the festival deb file. It is labelled 1.4.3. It like all the > others is old. > It is superior to the CMU online version in one respect the festival > Scheme interpreter > function list at the end of this manual is dynamically regenerated from > the source > code each time we build the festival package. Thus is reflects the > "function comment lines" > of the current Debian version of festival. > Even though the Festival documentation may be old it is still quite accurate, as Festival has not changed much in the past 10 years :-) > > Please note the copy of "Festival manual" we ship with the festival deb is > in "info" format > and may be accessed using "info festival" command. > > I didn't really care which format I use hence my suggestion that we drop > festival-doc. BUT... > > The format may be important from an a11y perspective for our users ! > > Based your combined knowledge a11y issues could everyone give an opinion > on "info" > vs "html" vs "ps". Please everyone give your opinion on this. > I would say that HTML is better than PS for accessibility. For instance, I am not able to select text using evince from the festival manual included in the festival-doc package. Maybe modern PS or modern PDF formats such as [PDF/UA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/UA) are good for accessibility purposes, but I have seen many more a11y-ready web pages than a11y-ready PDF files. Regarding the info format... I don't know much about its a11y... :-S > > Should we just choose one of those formats not necessarily the current > "info" format > for bundling with festival deb and drop festival-doc or are the additional > formats important? > > I strongly suggest from now on we build whatever manuals regenerated from > the actual > festival source code in our current deb. This suggests festival-doc even > if it is decided > to continue to exist should be a binary package built from the common > festival source package, > i.e. from the debian/control and debian/rules files of the festival source > package. > I agree. The festival-doc source package should be removed and the festival-doc and speech-tools-doc binary packages should be built from festival and speech-tools sources respectively. > > Based on this I think it would be appropriate for JP as maintainer of > festival to issue a > Debian ITA over the orphaned packages while we decide the formats and then > choose > whether we ship a binary festival-doc package built from festival source > package or only ship the one format > (as best serves the need of a11y users) inside the festival binary package. > > I look forward to hearing your experiences on formats from a a11y > perspective. Comments? > > I hope you agree that we should regenerate any shipped version of > "Festival manual" (even > though the bulk text is old) from our source code as we do for the current > "info" format (which > may change based on your input). Comments? > I agree completely. > > I have not pursued the speech-tools angle yet, but as a precaution I think > JP should Debian ITA in > his capacity as maintainer of speech-tools while we figure out how to > integrate its building out > of the common source or drop etc... > > with very best regards, > Peter > > Best regards, Sergio
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
Dear Maintainer/Uploaders of festival and Users of festival-docs, To clarify the situation. festival-doc currently contains a html and ps (Postscript) version of the "Festival Manual". The version number is 1.4.2 and dates from 25th July 2001. CMU (the current employer of Prof. Alan Black - one of the original authors of festival) has an online version of the manual version number 1.4.3 and dated 27th December 2002. CSTR at University of Edinburgh - (the University where festival was originally written) has an online version of the manual version number 1.4.0 and dated 17th July 1999. No later copies of the main content of "Festival Manual" appear to have been published. The current Debian festival (not festival-docs) package ships a copy of "Festival Manual" as part of the festival deb file. It is labelled 1.4.3. It like all the others is old. It is superior to the CMU online version in one respect the festival Scheme interpreter function list at the end of this manual is dynamically regenerated from the source code each time we build the festival package. Thus is reflects the "function comment lines" of the current Debian version of festival. Please note the copy of "Festival manual" we ship with the festival deb is in "info" format and may be accessed using "info festival" command. I didn't really care which format I use hence my suggestion that we drop festival-doc. BUT... The format may be important from an a11y perspective for our users ! Based your combined knowledge a11y issues could everyone give an opinion on "info" vs "html" vs "ps". Please everyone give your opinion on this. Should we just choose one of those formats not necessarily the current "info" format for bundling with festival deb and drop festival-doc or are the additional formats important? I strongly suggest from now on we build whatever manuals regenerated from the actual festival source code in our current deb. This suggests festival-doc even if it is decided to continue to exist should be a binary package built from the common festival source package, i.e. from the debian/control and debian/rules files of the festival source package. Based on this I think it would be appropriate for JP as maintainer of festival to issue a Debian ITA over the orphaned packages while we decide the formats and then choose whether we ship a binary festival-doc package built from festival source package or only ship the one format (as best serves the need of a11y users) inside the festival binary package. I look forward to hearing your experiences on formats from a a11y perspective. Comments? I hope you agree that we should regenerate any shipped version of "Festival manual" (even though the bulk text is old) from our source code as we do for the current "info" format (which may change based on your input). Comments? I have not pursued the speech-tools angle yet, but as a precaution I think JP should Debian ITA in his capacity as maintainer of speech-tools while we figure out how to integrate its building out of the common source or drop etc... with very best regards, Peter
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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130209143652.GG31590@HP
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
I completely agree with Jean-Philippe :) Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130209150329.gc6...@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
Bug#699950: Festival-doc was orphaned by Kartik - should this be removed from the archive at this point?
Dear Users of Festival-doc, 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? 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? best regards, Peter
