On 16/07/15 18:59, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 16.07.2015, 15:46 +0200 schrieb Jack Underwood:
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
Am Donnerstag, den 16.07.2015, 15:46 +0200 schrieb Jack Underwood:
> 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
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 muses
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 depen
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
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:11:55 -0400 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz
wrote:
> MuseScore package doesn't depend on any soundfont, please check this
> thread for more details:
>
>
https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2015-July/045611.html
I find that thread a bit difficult to
6 matches
Mail list logo
