On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:10:38AM +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Did you see my follow-up mail[1]? It looks to me it does not only trigger
> the espeakup hang, but a whole bunch of other hangs.
I did, but without data I didn't have time to trawl through looking for
them. I'm not asserting that
Samuel Thibault (2014-02-25):
> Cyril Brulebois, le Tue 25 Feb 2014 10:26:51 +0300, a écrit :
> > Depends: espeak-data-udeb (>= uv), espeak-data-udeb (<< uv-next)
> >
> > where uv is espeak's upstream version, and uv-next the next one?
>
> That would indeed catch the issue, and clearly point o
Cyril Brulebois, le Tue 25 Feb 2014 10:26:51 +0300, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault (2014-02-24):
> > Colin Watson, le Tue 25 Feb 2014 00:12:43 +, a écrit :
> > > The situation where we have to occasionally rebuild espeakup due to
> > > new upstream versions of espeak is clearly far from ideal, an
Samuel Thibault (2014-02-24):
> Colin Watson, le Tue 25 Feb 2014 00:12:43 +, a écrit :
> > The situation where we have to occasionally rebuild espeakup due to
> > new upstream versions of espeak is clearly far from ideal, and I'm
> > making another clone for that.
I'm going to assume the issu
Colin Watson (2014-02-25):
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:12:43AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > In the meantime, I'm reverting my change from 1.103 for now since this
> > is all pretty tricky, although I'm fairly convinced that this is just
> > masking other bugs. So be it, I suppose.
>
> Uploade
Samuel Thibault, le Mon 24 Feb 2014 22:30:42 -0500, a écrit :
> Colin Watson, le Tue 25 Feb 2014 00:12:43 +, a écrit :
> > Reuploading espeakup against the latest version of espeak should get
> > rid of this stderr output, clearly ought to happen anyway,
>
> Right. I have uploaded it.
BTW, I
Hello,
Colin Watson, le Tue 25 Feb 2014 00:12:43 +, a écrit :
> Reuploading espeakup against the latest version of espeak should get
> rid of this stderr output, clearly ought to happen anyway,
Right. I have uploaded it.
> The situation where we have to occasionally rebuild espeakup due to
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:12:43AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> In the meantime, I'm reverting my change from 1.103 for now since this
> is all pretty tricky, although I'm fairly convinced that this is just
> masking other bugs. So be it, I suppose.
Uploaded:
debian-installer-utils (1.106) unsta
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> clone 739989 -1 -2
Bug #739989 [src:debian-installer-utils] debian-installer-utils: log-output
change breaks speech synthesis
Bug 739989 cloned as bugs 740021-740022
> reassign -1 espeakup: rebuild against latest espeak
Unknown command or malform
clone 739989 -1 -2
reassign -1 espeakup: rebuild against latest espeak
severity -1 important
reassign -2 espeak: build proper library udeb so that espeakup doesn't have to
be statically linked and hence break on upstream version changes
severity -2 important
thanks
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:17:1
Control: severity -1 critical
Cyril Brulebois (2014-02-24):
> Source: debian-installer-utils
> Version: 1.103
> Severity: serious
> Tags: d-i
> Justification: breaks speech synthesis
[…]
> Can you please have a look? Worst case I could revert and upload with
> urgency=high (the package is in te
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 critical
Bug #739989 [src:debian-installer-utils] debian-installer-utils: log-output
change breaks speech synthesis
Severity set to 'critical' from 'serious'
--
739989: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=739989
Debian Bug Tracking System
Source: debian-installer-utils
Version: 1.103
Severity: serious
Tags: d-i
Justification: breaks speech synthesis
Hi Colin,
the change below breaks speech synthesis, as reported here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2014/02/msg00093.html
and suspected here:
https://lists.debian.
13 matches
Mail list logo
