Am Donnerstag, den 08.08.2019, 10:56 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
> from what I can see, only these two soundfont package are still
> missing
> from our transition to provide sf[23]-soundfont-gm, right?
I have filed a bug against fluid-soundfont-gm and issued a pull request
for opl3-soundfont,
Hi Thorsten,
Am Donnerstag, den 23.05.2019, 00:15 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> opl3-soundfont 131891 30 sf2 (I think)
> fluid-soundfont-gm 145169 50 sf2 (I think)
from what I can see, only these two soundfont package are still missing
Fabian Greffrath dixit:
>Agreed, then I'll prepare timgm6mb-soundfont for upload now.
I just noticed that the soundfont itself is GPLv2… (only?)
in mine I use a script that edits the .sf2 to update metadata
like author or licence, perhaps you want to embed the licence
grant into the soundfont
Fabian Greffrath dixit:
>Agreed, then I'll prepare timgm6mb-soundfont for upload now.
Great. I’ve just uploaded mine:
• fluidr3mono-gm-soundfont @ 30
• musescore-general-soundfont-small @ 50
• musescore-general-soundfont @ 60 / 70 (for -lossless)
I’ll intend to backport at least one, perhaps
Am Donnerstag, den 01.08.2019, 15:53 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> After removing the musescore-compatible-soundfont from Provides,
Oops, this was a copy/paste-fauxpas from one of your packages.
> Agreed, but individual packages can use a different one if they
> have a reason for it, but I’d
Fabian Greffrath dixit:
>Done, feedback has been all positive so far.
I agree.
>Do you think the following commit does everything that's necessary for
>the timgm6mb-soundfont to properly support this new schema?
>
Am Samstag, den 27.07.2019, 15:26 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Meh I might be able to post that but I don’t read -devel due
> to traffic either except sometimes via the web archives so
> feel free to do that yourself ☻
Done, feedback has been all positive so far.
Do you think the following
Fabian Greffrath dixit:
>cleared out: Do you suggest for SF2 soundfonts to also provide the sf3-
>soundfont-gmvirtual package? I mean, technically they should be
>compatible, but this would mean we create a symlink with a different
>file extension. Do we want this?
Yes, of course we do want
Hi Thorsten,
Am Donnerstag, den 23.05.2019, 13:00 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> • I’ve added “sf2-soundfont-gm, sf3-soundfont-gm” to Provides in
> the binary package stanza in debian/control
before we announce our plans on -devel, I'd like to get one detail
cleared out: Do you suggest for
Hi Thorsten,
Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2019, 14:50 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Did anyone have a chance to review my proposed implementation?
you mean the postinst/prerm snippets that you posted a while back? They
looked great to me!
> gstreamer (the one that started this discussion)
Hi Fabian,
>now that buster has been released (congratulations to everyone!), I
>think we should move forward with this.
agreed.
>My proposed plan of actions is:
>
> - Announce new virtual package(s) on d-devel
> - Upload soundfonts packages prividing the virtual packages and
> calling the
Hi Thorsten,
now that buster has been released (congratulations to everyone!), I
think we should move forward with this.
My proposed plan of actions is:
- Announce new virtual package(s) on d-devel
- Upload soundfonts packages prividing the virtual packages and
calling the corresponding
Am Donnerstag, den 23.05.2019, 11:30 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Then we can call the virtual package sf2-soundfont-gm, so it's clear
> all providers have at least the GM sound set (since virtual packages
> can't have a Description), ok?
Fine with me!
> So all of them will provide
Dixi quod…
>I'll cobble together a patch for, for a start, fluidr3mono-gm-soundfont
>and post it here for review (so we're consistent). This should be trivial
>but, again, I'd like to avoid upload churn.
I’ve decided to start with musescore-general-soundfont-lossless instead
as the example
Hi again,
>I see. I am one of those stuck with a 12MB DSL line. And that's download
>speed. :-/
yeah... :|
>> The sf3 ones can also fulfill sf2.
>
>Isn't it the other way round? I mean, not every application that can
>render SF2 soundfonts can also render the SF3 variant.
Erm, yes. Sorry. It
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> True, but that would lead to major unnecessary package churn with,
> in my case, about 700 MiB (compressed size) per upload. Iâd prefer
> to avoid that, for snapshot.d.o sanity and users on poor bandwidth
> connections (i.e. Germans) â»
I see. I am one of those stuck
Fabian Greffrath dixit:
>Hi Thorsten et al.,
>
>> Do we also wish a /usr/share/sounds/sf3/default.sf3 ? Ib^@^Yve got four
>
>I don't have a strong opinion about this. My concern is merely that we
>have at least one soundfont installed so users can play MIDI
>out-of-the-box. We can still decide
>On Sat, 18 May 2019 20:34:57 +0100 Tim Colgate >
>wrote:
>> Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a standard way in Linux of
>>setting a default soundfont to be used by all midi players; I was
This (#929185) may also affect timidity, which has its own format,
but with a trivial config file
18 matches
Mail list logo
