Bug#791589: Your mail
fabian at debian.org
Thu Jul 16 13:58:27 UTC 2015
Am Donnerstag, den 16.07.2015, 15:46 +0200 schrieb Jack Underwood:
> 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.
One of the binary packages build by the musescore-2.0 source package
depends on another package that is currently not in the archive. This
means that no other binary package built from the same source package
may enter testing.
> 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
But only for architectures on which the musescore-2.0 package has not
yet been successfully built. This is the second bug that keeps
musescore-2.0 from entering testing, it fails to build on a lot of
> 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
In the source tree, in the debian/ directory, in the control file.
> 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.
C is a dummy package built from the same sources as A, And C's
dependency on B cannot be satisfied. This means that neither A nor C
may enter testing until this is resolved.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers