Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2015, 03:15 +0200 schrieb Jack Underwood: > I find that thread a bit difficult to follow, did you mean that
I admit it is, because both you and I have mixed up the musescore-1.x and musescore-2.0 packages in the course of our discussion. > musescore-2.0 should depend > on musescore-soundfont-gm-1.3 and not musescore-soundfont-gm-2.0? No, musescore (>= 2.0) should not depend on any other soundfont package -- just as it currently is. The Suggests relations to other soundfont -providing packages should also be fine as they are. > 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. > As discussed above musescore-2.0 should come with its own soundfont > already included, Yes, it is in musescore-common (>= 2.0). > thus we just need to remove musescore-soundfont-gm as a dependency for > musescore. Yes, this has already happened for musescore (>= 2.0). > 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). Cheers, Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
