Bug#791589: Your mail
juichenieder-debbie at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jul 16 13:46:49 UTC 2015
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
>> It could get made a suggestion, but perhaps not needed as it simply
>> duplicates the other
> 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.
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers