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 architectures. > 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). 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. Cheers, Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
