Well, that's basically why we use speakup_synth=none. So sighted people don't have to use speakup. Unfortunately, however, that does absolutely nothing for the keymap, which locks out the numeric keypad to sighted users. The best option is to have the speakup patch in the official source, and of course the patch includes the config options that default to Speakup not being included in the build unless you tell it yes. Then if there are blind people and sighted people both using the same computer, the system would be configured with Lilo to boot with a choice of two kernels, one with Speakup and the other without it. That is, of course, unless a boot parameter could have the same function of turning both Speakup and its keymap on or off. Lorenzo E Pluribus Unix Luke Davis staggered into view and mumbled: > The original discussion was Slackware's use of unmodified kernel sources > in their distribution. It then went to the issue of Speakup not being in > the regular kernel source, and thus Slackware's need to provide patched > speakup kernels, for its distribution's install kernels. > Yes, if you are compiling a new kernel, you can add anything you want. > However, if you are installing a new distribution, you get what they give > you, or you go through the hassles of obtaining specialized bootdisks. > It would simplify things greatly, if Speakup was included in the master > kernel.org source tree, as just another driver. > > I said that I thought, in order for this to happen, speakup needed the > ability to start in a dormant, or unloaded state by default, and therefore > be activatable by a boot paramater of "speakup=on,speakup_synth=dectlk". > I then posited, that if such a parameter existed, it should be made > possible, during a kernel compile, to change that defaulting to off > behavior, such that a "speakup=on" would not be necessary, if the person > compiling the kernel *wanted* speakup to be on all of the time, unless > they did the converse of the above, and specified a "speakup=off" boot > parameter (such as might be necessary, if another family member was > booting the system, and didn't want speech). > > Yes, this latter is a separate issue, but it entered the discussion as > explained, and is thus a part of it, so long as anyone cares to talk to me > about it.:) > > Luke > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Doug Sutherland wrote: > > > Luke, > > > > > We're talking about the official distribution, not your own > > > patched copy of the official distribution of the kernel. > > > > What's the difference? Presumably if speakup was added to the > > official, it would do what I am looking at: it adds a new > > option in console drivers for speakup, and allows you to > > select synthesizers. Why should it be any different if it was > > in the official source? > > > > Are you talking about a kernel parameter to tell it to use > > speakup or not? If so, I think that is a separate issue. > > This is the build of the kernel. > > > > -- Doug > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
