On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:11:46AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote: > > Ok, in that case the best chance of clearing this up quickly is still to > > show that swami is useful for authoring sound fonts and that fluidsynth > > plays a role in this.
> Whether or not fluidsynth plays a role there isn't that relevant. > The bug report is about whether there are free sound fonts available > to use with fluidsynth. As soon as we discover that the user can > create his own sound fonts, it becomes pointless to state that > fluidsynth depends on non-free sound fonts. If I am to argue this position to the other members of the Technical Committee, I would like to be able to prove to myself not just that swami can be used to author soundfonts for use with fluidsynth, but that fluidsynth is used by swami *in the process* of authoring these soundfonts. If hitting those piano keys to test my one-sample soundfont is in fact running them through fluidsynth, then I'm content to call this a significant free use of fluidsynth. If, OTOH, what I've done so far didn't make use of fluidsynth, I'm not content with the explanation that one *can* use swami to create soundfonts when so far I haven't created anything by this method that's worth using. :) So I think I need either a bit more handholding with swami to create a minimally useful soundfont, or I need confirmation that fluidsynth is being used in the authoring process with swami, to be happy recommending an immediate vote here. Otherwise, we wander into twisty questions of what a "dependency" is, like we have already for ndiswrapper. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
