On Friday 26 May 2006 06:00, Andrew Pollock was like: > rosegarden is just a meta-package that depends on rosegarden2 for > transition purposes. > > rosegarden2 is also orphaned, and recommends (not in a package relationship > kind of way) that people look at rosegarden4 instead. > > So I'm inclined to do an upload of rosegarden changing the maintainer and > depending on rosegarden4,
Yes please. > and an upload of rosegarden2, making it into a > meta-package also, and depending on rosegarden4. Is this for transitional purposes rather than dropping it completely? People who have rosegarden2 installed may not want it upgraded to Rosegarden4. I would just drop it, now that Rosegarden4 is stable. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
