libsonic source hosting

[Bohdan R . Rau]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:20:19 +0100, Andrei Kholodnyi
<andrei.kholodnyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Bohdan R. Rau <ethanak at polip.com> wrote:
>> At 1 - integration is essential, so it's not possible to make it
optional
> 
> allow me to retort :D.
> it is possible, I think we should do the way Halim has asked.

Making it optional has no sense for me.
Of course we can use libsox instead - but if I remember correctly you
don't like constructions like:

#ifdef HAVE_SONIC
#include <sonic.h>
#else
#ifdef HAVE_SOX
#include <sox.h>
#else
#i don't know what should be here :(
#endif
#endif


> 
> Well, the problem is the integration, support etc.
> E.g. if we decide to include sonic dependency in SPD, we need to be
> sure sonic is supported,
> easy accessible, packaged etc.

Like we are sure dotconf is supported, easy accessible and packaged?

Dotconf is supported, is easy accessible, but is not packaged in newest
version, probably because someone (William?) should send the official
letter to each distribution developers with information where are new
dotconf sources... For me it's nonsense, on dotconf homepage everybody can
find this information.

> 
> That's why I have suggested to include sonic directly into SPD source
tree.
> Then you have at least a control over it and no external dependency.
> Otherwise I fear feature will be there but nobody will use it, due to
> missing support.

Of course - may be SD should still support buggy 1.0 dotconf?

> 
>> At 3 - it's problem for distros developers, not for speech-dispatcher
>> developers. If developer, i.e. Debian's is not able to find sources
which
>> were slipped under his nose, he rather should engage in trade with
>> parsley.
> 
> at the end it is SPD problem.

No - if all libraries will be easy accessible and there will be clear
informations about sources, minimal versions etc.

ethanak
-- 
http://milena.polip.com/ - Pa pa, Ivonko!