On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:30:06PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:48:18PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:58:12AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > > So, in the future we should probably
> > > package espeak-ng as well, for the sake of users that need
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:48:18PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:58:12AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > So, in the future we should probably
> > package espeak-ng as well, for the sake of users that need speech
> > synthesis. It will conflict with espeak since the output b
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:58:12AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> So, in the future we should probably
> package espeak-ng as well, for the sake of users that need speech
> synthesis. It will conflict with espeak since the output binaries have
> the same names.
>From what you write, would it not be
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:58:12AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:26:37AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > These patches provide the eSpeak software speech synthesizer [0].
>
> I realized that the espeak upstream has gone inactive [0] and the users have
> forked the project
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:26:37AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> These patches provide the eSpeak software speech synthesizer [0].
I realized that the espeak upstream has gone inactive [0] and the users have
forked the project as espeak-ng: https://github.com/espeak-ng/espeak-ng/
The impression I
These patches provide the eSpeak software speech synthesizer [0].
I need advice on what audio system to configure it to use.
This patch configures it to use PulseAudio if it is available, and to
use PortAudio otherwise. Of course, since I have included PulseAudio as
an input, PulseAudio is always
