Bug#791589: Your mail

[Jack Underwood]

On 16/07/15 09:28, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> Why do we have to wait for ftp-master approval of timgm6mb-soundfont?
>
> Because musescore-soundfont-gm has been turned into a dummy package
> that has "Depends: timgm6mb-soundfont" -- rightly so. But, if the
> latter package is not in the archive, this dependency cannot be
> satisfied, which in turn is a policy violation, and thus a release
> -critical bug, ans thus avoids the whole package from entering testing.
>

Perhaps this comes as a mixup between 1.x and 2.0, but it seemed like 
Tiago said we had to wait for timgm6mb-soundfont to get approved before 
musescore-2.x could go into testing.  I meant in my comment above that 
as musescore 2.x shouldn't depend on timgm6mb-soundfont as we discussed 
then we don't have to wait for timgm6mb-soundfont.

> Yes, this has already happened for musescore (>= 2.0).

I don't see it yet... the 2.0 package in sid 
https://packages.debian.org/sid/musescore (dfsg3) still lists 
musescore-soundfont-gm as a dependency, also looking in 
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-multimedia/musescore.git  If it has 
already gone in, where do I see it?  (Sorry for asking what looks like a 
basic question, as I said before I still have a lot to learn about 
packaging).

>> It could get made a suggestion, but perhaps not needed as it simply
>> duplicates the other
>> suggestions...
>
> It's successor package, timgm6mb-soundfont, i.e. the one that musescore
> -soundfont-gm (>= 2.0) depends on, is already among the suggested
> packages for musescore (>= 2.0).
>

Yes, I know that, I meant we have A suggests B; and A suggests C which 
depends on B, with A as musescore2, B as timgm6mb-soundfont and C as 
musescore-soundfont-gm.  I wanted to make the point that one of those 
suggests seems redundant.