Debian/Ubuntu package for MuseScore 2.0 beta1 available
Hi all, I've just built a .deb for MuseScore 2.0b1 and would like to share with those who are not in the mood to build it themselves. Note that it's not an official Debian package and it doesn't follow Debian standards. It's just a quick-hack-build to make it more accessible to GNU/Linux users before we get it officially in Debian (I'm working on it right now). It's 64bit only and should work for Debian Sid (unstable) and most Debian derivatives, such as Ubuntu.
Instructions:
- Download the package at https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0b-1_amd64.deb
- Remove old musescore instalation: sudo apt-get remove musescore
- Be sure you have 'sid' or 'unstable' in your /etc/sources.list (Debian only, can't say about other distros)
- Install the package: sudo dpkg -i musescore_2.0b-1_amd64.deb
- It will break due to missing dependencies, so just install it: sudo apt-get -f install
- Run it from your desktop environment menu.
- Profit :)
This package will intencionally install files under /usr/local/ rather than the usual /usr/ directory. Do not forget to remove it before installing a future version of MuseScore in your system.
Regards,
Comments
Unfortunately, it may work for Debian, but not for Ubuntu.
Best just to get in the mood and do your own build. I installed QT5 first and the rest went smoothly. I'm using xubuntu 12.04 64-bit.
In reply to Best just to get in the mood by underquark
Can you please explain how you made to install it?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
As you said, the solution is to compile.
For all the ubuntu users, here the instructions: //musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/compilation
Can you describe the issue? Then I can try to fix it.
I folowed your instructions and this is what I got:
Unpacking musescore (2.0b-1) ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of musescore:
musescore depends on libqt5core5a (>= 5.3.0); however:
Version of libqt5core5a:amd64 on system is 5.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu14.2.
musescore depends on libqt5gui5 (>= 5.3.0); however:
Version of libqt5gui5:amd64 on system is 5.2.1+dfsg-1ubuntu14.2.
musescore depends on libqt5webkit5 (>= 5.2.0); however:
Version of libqt5webkit5:amd64 on system is 5.1.1-1ubuntu8.
musescore depends on libstdc++6 (>= 4.9); however:
Version of libstdc++6:amd64 on system is 4.8.2-19ubuntu1.
musescore depends on qtbase-abi-5-3-1; however:
Package qtbase-abi-5-3-1 is not installed.
dpkg: error processing package musescore (--install):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme (0.13-1) ...
Processing triggers for shared-mime-info (1.2-0ubuntu3) ...
Processing triggers for mime-support (3.54ubuntu1) ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
musescore
I tried to install it on Elementary OS Luna (based on Ubuntu 12.04) and it doesn't work. It tells me:
"The following errors were found: musescore"
In reply to It doesn't work for Ubuntu-based distros by canhoto
So the dependencies are not fulfilled on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, because the packages are too old in comparison with tiagovaz' package. Has anyone tried the package with Ubuntu 14.10?
In reply to What about Ubuntu 14.10? by alexschr
I tried the way odradek recommends. There is a page with detailed step by step information how to do it, not hard to do.
http://musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/compilation/compile-instruc…
Remarks:
(1) I first tried that with 14.04 and it did not work
(2) After that I upgraded to 14.10 and tried again. Works since then.
(3) the fourth line or step if you will has to be completed manually, no copy and paste here because instead of
qtscript5-dev libqt5xmlpatterns5-dev libqt5svg5-dev libqt5webkit5-dev
it has to be
sudo apt-get install qtscript5-dev libqt5xmlpatterns5-dev libqt5svg5-dev libqt5webkit5-dev
In reply to Own build runs on 14.10 by Reinhard Becker
I've just fixed that step, using a \ and a linefeed
Please allow me to get slightly off topic here. Would it possible to package all the Musescore versions as .deb files? I find them easier to work with than the format used at present.
Debian/Ubuntu maintainers usually do that. You have at least 0.96, 1.2 and 1.3 available:
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=musescore (choose from stable, testing, unstable)
http://packages.ubuntu.com/fr/lucid/musescore (choose from lucid, precise, raring etc...)
2.0 is being packaged.
In reply to Debian/Ubuntu maintainers by tvaz
Thanks to your help I now have 1.3 running natively. I was running it through wine before.
Just curious is there a reason for not making the .deb files the main file type for Linux downlaods. When I tried to download MuseScore from the button on the main page it took me to some other file type that couldn't figure out how to install.
I could really do with an Ubuntu package, even if it is in .deb format, although a PPA is of course fantastic. I really need some of the 2.0 features...
In the past I tried to join the Launchpad MuseScore packaging team/group, but got no reply. I have no idea how to package it for Ubuntu, but maybe I can try.
In reply to I could really do with an by etienne
I understand that to package one must first compile.
Linux compilations are uploaded (by me) to http://prereleases.musescore.org/linux/nightly/
I think they can be useful for any Linux, if one understands how to add some dependances.
There has been some discussions about using them in Ubuntu and derivatives. (search for my posts)
see http://musescore.org/fr/node/38381 (in french) and http://musescore.org/en/node/38091
.deb can be used by Debians, (including Ubuntu and its derivatives)
ppa can be used by Ubuntu and derivatives,
I don't think there is someone maintaining a ppa or even a .deb for the «trunk» or the 2.0
for others there is other package systems. I didn't see posts about them.
In reply to I understand that to package by robert leleu
Hi, the best way to have recent releases of Musescore in Debian and derivatives is asking the maintainer to do the job. Actually the best is to send a patch, but it's not an easy task to prepare a .deb package following all Debian quality standards. Once the package is in Debian, it'll be automatically migrated to Ubuntu and other Debian-based distributions.
I've contacted the maintainer some weeks ago and he said he'd be working on it. We're all volunteers, sometimes it takes more time than we wanted to get such things done, unfortunatelly :( Now I've just filed a bug asking him to consider packaging 2.0b. If we don't get it soon I'll give some time to it myself.
See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768524
Anybody can 'second' the request by mailing 768524@bugs.debian.org in this case.
ps: I'm not blaming the maintainer, nor calling people to make pressure on him, I'm just trying to show how things work on this deb packaging world, so MuseScore users can find the 'right' channels for packaging requests on next releleases.
Your instructions don't work unless all the dependencies are satisfied. The correct way is instead to do
"sudo gdebi [name-of-the-deb-file-goes-here]" which automatically handles the dependencies.
Could someone prepare a Beta 2 package for Ubuntu?
See the last post on https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768524
It seems that Toby Smithe doesn't succeed to prepare a PPA
In reply to See the last post on by robert leleu
Hi there, I've built a 64bit package for 2.0beta2 (actually, I used sources from MuseScore git repo on 28/01/2015). It works as expected in my Debian Jessie/Sid system. This is not intended to be an official Debian package. I've poked the maintainer again, let's see if he finds some time to put into it.
You can download my MuseScore 2.0beta2 package from https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0b2-1_amd64.deb
In reply to Hi there, I've built a 64bit by tvaz
Teagovaz-
Thanks for the .deb!
Just an FYI... This deb is looking for >= qt 5.3. The current official Ubuntu version I think is 5.2.1. Trying to load this on Linux Mint Rebecca (latest):
I installed Qt5.4, but it does not add its libs to the path, it uses a proprietary installer that just sets up a local environment. I am no Qt expert, nor deb packaging expert, but I believe the Qt libs are generally packaged with the app, rather than trying to find a local run-time environment, like Java does.
In reply to Teagovaz- Thanks for the by starboard-leeward
Hi, instead of installing a third-party QT library you can use Ubuntu's official utopic repository, as it deliveries 5.3.0. See http://packages.ubuntu.com/utopic/libqt5core5a. Hope that helps.
As an answer to your question: I can confirm, that this .deb does NOT install even on 14.10 (very fresh install). Thanks anyway!
EDIT: sorry, wrong place, can't delete this post. Moderator? Thx!
Any hints?
Anyway theres a newer file that works for me: https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0b2-1_amd64.deb
Had to install libqt5quickwidgets5 afterwards.
In reply to Dependency is not by wieczorek1990
Yes, but how can you install libqt5quickwidgets5 in Ubuntu 14.04 or its derivatives (like Linux Mint 17.1, which I'm using now)?
In reply to Yes, but how can you install by canhoto
Hi, I've tried to build a package suitable for Ubuntu 14.04, but MuseScore indeed requires libqt5quickwidgets5, which is *not* available in this Ubuntu release. So you'll need to install this library from another source. An easy way to do it is adding the new "utopic" repository to your Software Center and then installing the package in the regular way. Here is a how to on adding new repository sources to your system: https://help.ubuntu.com/stable/ubuntu-help/addremove-sources.html
You can also just download the package from http://packages.ubuntu.com/utopic/amd64/libqt5quickwidgets5/download. Note that this page will strongly recommend you to use the first option :)
Bests,
yeah, it's running! Thanks wieczorek1990
Is there one 386 version (32 bits) ? If not, how I may compile one?
In reply to Is there one 386 version (32 by remypetit
I'll try to build a i386 package and post here today. You can also try using the regular build instructions somewhere in MuseScore website.
In reply to I'll try to build a i386 by tvaz
Thank you very much for this work
In reply to Thank you very much for this by remypetit
You're welcome. Here's the i386 package: https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0b2-2_i386.deb
Hi there, I've just built 32/64bit Debian packages for MuseScore 2.0 pre-release, please try them and report any issues you find! It seems that this amazing piece of free software will be released very very soon :)
These packages were built from the master branch in 24 feb 2015 (commit 781c5b756eafc4fcafa115864f474c3432a4ab14). They work well in my Debian Jessie/Sid.
* for 32bit systems: https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0b2-3_i386.deb
* for 64bit systems: https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0b2-3_amd64.deb
Ubuntu users please read:
I've tried to build a package suitable for Ubuntu 14.04, but MuseScore indeed requires libqt5quickwidgets5, which is not available in this Ubuntu release. So you'll need to install this library from another source. An easy way to do it is adding the new "Utopic" repository to your Software Center and then installing the package in the regular way.
Here is a how to on adding new repository sources to your system: https://help.ubuntu.com/stable/ubuntu-help/addremove-sources.html
You can also just download and install the available package from http://packages.ubuntu.com/utopic/amd64/libqt5quickwidgets5/download. Note that this page will strongly recommend you to use the first option above :)
Enjoy, and many thanks for MuseScore developers and contributors!
In reply to Hi there, I've just built by tvaz
Having manually installed : libqt5declarative5_5.3.0-4_i386.deb and libqt5quickwidgets5_5.3.0-3ubuntu13_i386
from here :
http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/q/qtquick1-opensource…
http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/q/qtbase-opensource-src/l…
and it works on linuxmint 17.1 i386
Thank you
In reply to Having manually installed : by remypetit
How did you manage to install this? With me (with Ubuntustudio 14.04) it gives me dependencies errors (libqt5core5a).
In reply to How did you manage to install by canhoto
I activated for a moment the repository :
deb http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu utopic main
If you have errors, at first type in a terminal the following commands :
sudo apt-get install -f
sudo apt-get autoremove
Then install both librairies indicated before and finishing by musescore
Do not forget to deactivate the repository at the end of the install.
In reply to I activated for a moment the by remypetit
Well, I activated the repositories, I installed both libraries and I then installed the latest version of the Musescore deb.
It worked great with my 64 bit computer (linuxmint 17.1). But with my i368 (running Ubuntustudio 14.04) it does everything right like if the installation was successful (I even tried to install from the terminal using dpkg -i to see the logs). But, when I try to run it, it doesn't open. I see an icon in the menu, but it doesn't open. When I try to run it from the terminal it tells me musescore is not installed.
I looked in /usr/bin, on /usr/local and in /bin to see if musescore was there, but it wasn't.
Like I said, the same process with my amd64 computer worked great and Musescore 2 is running without any problem.
In reply to I activated for a moment the by remypetit
how do you deactivate? I tried the above commands, seems to make no difference I still cannot musecore 2.0 to work...
In reply to how do you deactivate? I by macrobbair
Are you trying to install the beta1? That is ancient - almost a year old! If you are having problems with the current release of MuseScore, please start a new thread thread and describe *precisely* what you are trying to do, what you expect to see happen, and what happens instead. Also say what OS you are on.
In reply to Having manually installed : by remypetit
remypetit,
Is it possible for you to write a kind of 'step by step' how you successfuly installed
the beta version? I have appart from Windows 7 64 bit also linuxmint 17.1 64 bit as O.S.
Thanks.
In reply to remypetit, Is it possible for by JoeAlders
There is actually a step by step guide for installing musescore 2.0 on 64 bit Linux. Though you have to build it, with these steps it is rather easy. Try it.
http://musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/compilation/compile-instruc…
I've done it myself 1 week ago, and it worked without problems.
In reply to Hi there, I've just built by tvaz
Also had to install libqt5help5 package (Debian Sid).
In reply to Hi there, I've just built by tvaz
I tried to install this using GDebi but got a dependency error for libc6. I am running Debian GNU/Linux 7.8 and the latest version in the repository for libc6 is 2.13. Apparently 2.14 or higher is required. Is there a way around this? The other dependencies mentioned in this thread all seem to be present (no problems with them so far).
In reply to I tried to install this using by hughtmccullough
Debian 8 (Jessie) has libc6 2.19, which is fine for MuseScore. I'm almost sure that it wouldn't work with 2.13. Is that possible for you to update your system to Jessie? Please notice that MuseScore is a very new piece of software and depends on other recent software, so it's hard to get it working in a system which was released (exactly!) two years ago. I've read that updating from Wheezy to Jessie has been a painless process for most users, including myself.
I am using a loaner computer at the moment but would like to compose. It uses Ubuntu. How can I download?
I am Ubuntu 14.10 user . I solved the dependence of error of the virtual library "qtbase-abi-5-3-0" downloading and manually installing this file: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/178014765/libqt5declarative5_5.3.0-4_amd6…
To all Debian users,
We're looking for someone who can pledge to deliver a MuseScore 2.0 package for Debian on March 24. Read more at http://musescore.org/en/node/50486#comment-236621
In reply to To all Debian users, We're by Thomas
Hi Thomas, I will deliver non-official 32 and 64bit Debian/Ubuntu packages on (or before) March 24.
I'm in contact with the current MuseScore package maintainer in Debian i n order to have an official package ready as well by this date, but this one doesn't depend on me, so I can't promise. Also, note that Debian is in freezing period, so we can't really upload new releases to it. Even if we finish the official package in time, it'll probably be uploaded to our experimental repository, and instructions regarding the installation will be posted here.
In reply to Hi Thomas, I will deliver by tvaz
Thanks for your pledge Tiago. The unofficial Debian/Ubuntu packages will do just fine. I have also a pledge from Toby who typically does the Ubuntu packages and who is able to push it into the repo there.
I will send you some more info during next week, as to when and how we will make the final source available. You can of course already try with the RC source to make sure all goes well.
One question though: do you know whether Debian has any specific requirements regarding the MuseScore icon?
In reply to Thanks for your pledge Tiago. by Thomas
I'm bulding right now the RC packages. Regarding the icon, a 64x64 transparent PNG is fine for Debian.
In reply to I'm bulding right now the RC by tvaz
@tiago Serve yourself: http://musescore.org/en/about/logos-and-graphics I'm curious how the transparent icon will look like so if you have a screenshot, that would be good.
In reply to @tiago Serve yourself: by Thomas
Here's how it looks like in my XFCE:
In reply to Here's how it looks like in by tvaz
Ok, it's not bad, but it can be better. Please find a 64x64 version plus a higher res version attached.
Also, can we change the tagline "WYSIWYG Music score typesetter" into "Create, play and print sheet music".
Thanks!
In reply to Ok, it's not bad, but it can by Thomas
Yes, it looks better now. For next packages I will use "Create, play and print sheet music", for sure :) Please ping Toby about it as well.
In reply to Here's how it looks like in by tvaz
Not sure if it helps but I updated mscore.desktop in MuseScore repository in d5eae580a3 to include the slogan proposed by Thomas.
In reply to Not sure if it helps but I by [DELETED] 5
Yes, it'll certainly help for next packages builds, thanks!
In reply to @tiago Serve yourself: by Thomas
And in a dark bg cinnamon:
In reply to And in a dark bg cinnamon: by tvaz
This icon may look good in cinnamon but it looks absolutely dreadful when using LXPanel on the default debian jessie with LXDE. The icon is almost the same colour as the wallpaper and can barely be seen. Making icons transparent makes them very sensitive to what they are rendered on top of.
In reply to This icon may look good in by hughtmccullough
@hugh care for sharing a screenshot?
In reply to @hugh care for sharing a by Thomas
I've just built a package with the new png icon and it looks fine in my Jessie XFCE panel. I'll try LXDE as well.
In reply to I've just built a package by tvaz
And in LXDE:
In reply to @hugh care for sharing a by Thomas
I thought you might ask that but I didn't know how to do it.
If this works it will have added a bit more to my education!
NOT FOUND: 1
In reply to I thought you might ask that by hughtmccullough
ah, don't worry, this is the old icon!! Now we have the one with the circle which will do the missing contrast, see my screenshots :)
In reply to ah, don't worry, this is the by tvaz
OK. Sorry, I got the chronology wrong! I hadn't noticed that your comments on the new icon came 10 minutes AFTER you posted the link to the RC debian packages. I had assumed that the packages included the latest icon. I have now put one of the new icons from the zip file into the pixmaps directory and it looks a LOT better.
Unofficial Debian packages for 2.0 RC available:
* 64bit: https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0rc1_amd64.deb
* 32bit: https://people.debian.org/~tiago/musescore_2.0rc1_i386.deb
In reply to Unofficial Debian packages by tvaz
I tried the 64.....unable to cope with dependances
and that on the Mint64 I use to compile the linux nighlies....
should I investigate ?
In reply to I tried the 64.....unable to by robert leleu
Try 'sudo apt-get -f install' and see if it installs your missing dependencies. If not, please paste your output errors here and I try to help you.
In reply to Try 'sudo apt-get -f install' by tvaz
Tried
sudo apt-get -f install ./musescore_2.0rc1_amd64.deb
and received a very long list of lines similar to
La version « musescore_2.0rc1_amd64.deb » de « mbrola-nl2 » est introuvable
(est introuvable= can't be found)
could you give me an explicit command line for a .deb in my home
thanks
In reply to Tried sudo apt-get -f install by robert leleu
Try:
sudo dpkg -i musescore_2.0rc1_amd64.deb
there'll be some errors about missing dependencies, then you type:
sudo apt-get -f install
In reply to Try: sudo dpkg -i by tvaz
thanks, but dependences problem about libqt5webkit5 (>= 5.2.0). Also, 1st line, I don't understand the advertisement about downgrade
leleu@leleu-portable:~ > sudo dpkg -i musescore_2.0rc1_amd64.deb[sudo] password for leleu:
dpkg : avertissement : dégradation (« downgrade ») de musescore depuis 2.0.0-unstable-516d037 vers 2.0rc1
(Lecture de la base de données... 239239 fichiers et répertoires déjà installés.)
Préparation du décompactage de musescore_2.0rc1_amd64.deb ...
Décompactage de musescore (2.0rc1) sur (2.0.0-unstable-516d037) ...
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/pixmaps » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/plugins » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/templates » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/manual/plugins » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/manual » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/locale » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/instruments » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0/sound » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/mscore-2.0 » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share/applications » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg : avertissement : impossible de supprimer l'ancien répertoire « /usr/local/share » : Le dossier n'est pas vide
dpkg: des problèmes de dépendances empêchent la configuration de musescore :
musescore dépend de libqt5webkit5 (>= 5.2.0) ; cependant :
La version de libqt5webkit5:amd64 sur le système est 5.1.1-1ubuntu8.
musescore dépend de libqt5xmlpatterns5 (>= 5.0.2) ; cependant :
Le paquet libqt5xmlpatterns5 n'est pas installé.
musescore dépend de libqt5scripttools5 ; cependant :
Le paquet libqt5scripttools5 n'est pas installé.
dpkg: error processing package musescore (--install):
problèmes de dépendances - laissé non configuré
In reply to thanks, but dependences by robert leleu
It seems you have an old Ubuntu release and then should add a "Utopic" Ubuntu repository in your software center. Or install dependencies by hand (=can be painful). See from another comment:
Ubuntu users please read:
I've tried to build a package suitable for Ubuntu 14.04, but MuseScore indeed requires libqt5quickwidgets5, which is not available in this Ubuntu release. So you'll need to install this library from another source. An easy way to do it is adding the new "Utopic" repository to your
Software Center and then installing the package in the regular way.
Here is a how to on adding new repository sources to your system: https://help.ubuntu.com/stable/ubuntu-help/addremove-sources.html
You can also just download and install the available package from http://packages.ubuntu.com/utopic/amd64/libqt5quickwidgets5/download.
The downgrade message is due to the fact that the package system consider the string "2.0rc1" a newer version than "2.0.0", my fault here, but no worries needed.
In reply to It seems you have an old by tvaz
1//
I use Mint17.1 Rebecca because I hate Unity and dashboard, and AFAIK it doesn't seem that this Mint could run with Utopic PPA
2//
I tried to install libqt5quickwidgets5_5.3.0-3ubuntu13_amd64.deb
Error : unable to satisfy dependences
with no clues to which ones
3//
Compilation under my Mint seems to work, and I can use the nightlies I produce.....but perhaps they don't run under recent Ubuntus....
In reply to Unofficial Debian packages by tvaz
Unable to install this (32 bit) on wheezy. It's supposed to work in debian stable?
here the errors:
sudo dpkg -i musescore_2.0rc1_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 477816 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace musescore 2.0rc1 (using musescore_2.0rc1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement musescore ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of musescore:
musescore depends on libc6 (>= 2.14); however:
Version of libc6:i386 on system is 2.13-38+deb7u8.
musescore depends on libqt5core5a (>= 5.2.0); however:
Package libqt5core5a is not installed.
musescore depends on libqt5designer5 (>= 5.0.2); however:
Package libqt5designer5 is not installed.
musescore depends on libqt5gui5 (>= 5.2.0); however:
Version of libqt5gui5 on system is 5.1.1-1kxstudio1.
musescore depends on libqt5qml5 (>= 5.0.2); however:
Package libqt5qml5 is not installed.
musescore depends on libqt5quick5 (>= 5.2.0); however:
Package libqt5quick5 is not installed.
musescore depends on libqt5svg5 (>= 5.0.2); however:
Package libqt5svg5 is not installed.
musescore depends on libqt5webkit5 (>= 5.2.0); however:
Package libqt5webkit5 is not installed.
musescore depends on libqt5widgets5 (>= 5.2.0); however:
Version of libqt5widgets5 on system is 5.1.1-1kxstudio1.
musescore depends on libqt5xmlpatterns5 (>= 5.0.2); howev
dpkg: error processing musescore (--install):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Processing triggers for mime-support ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
musescore
thanks
In reply to Unofficial Debian packages by tvaz
I tried installing the 32 bit version on Jessie (using the weekly download for LXDE). This seemed to install successfully but when I clicked on the entry in the menu nothing happened. I tried it from the command line and discovered that two dependencies were missing, even though the installation seemed to be successful. These were libqt5quickwidgets5 and libqt5help5. I installed these manually and that allowed Musescore to start up. I haven't tried to do anything significant yet with Musescore 2 but I can now open it up and close it again. It looks as if the package still needs some fine tuning.
In reply to I tried installing the 32 bit by hughtmccullough
Thanks for reporting, I'll add libqt5quickwidgets5 and libqt5help5 as dependencies for next builds!
In reply to Thanks for reporting, I'll by tvaz
Hi ,
Thank you very much for your work but you built against a testing release instead of a wheezy-backport (Debian 7.x)
So even if we can now find all QT5 packages on wheezy-backport
all the following packages are in version 5.3.2
libqt5concurrent5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5core5a (>= 5.2.0).
libqt5designer5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5gui5 (>= 5.2.0)
libqt5network5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5opengl5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5printsupport5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5qml5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5quick5 (>= 5.2.0)
libqt5sql5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5svg5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5test5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5xmlpatterns5 (>= 5.0.2)
libqt5webkit5 (>= 5.2.0)
libqt5declarative5
libqt5scripttools5
As Debian Wheezy runs
- libc6 version 2.13 but your build depends on libc6 (>= 2.14)
- libstdc++6 version 4.7.2 but your build depends on libstdc++6 (>=4.9)
impossible to install musescore_2.0rc1_i386.deb .
Could you please re-build on Debian 7 (Wheezy) with libc6 (>= 2.13) and libstdc++6 (>= 4.7.2)
regards,
Pierrick
In reply to Hi , Thank you very much for by pierrick
I tried this a couple of weeks ago (March 5) and you can read the response above. I ended up installing jessie.
In reply to Hi , Thank you very much for by pierrick
I've just built MuseScore 2.0 using wheezy-backports and libc6/libstdc++ versions from Wheezy, so try again with this one:
https://people.debian.org/~tiago/wheezy-bpo/musescore_2.0.0~0-1_i386.deb
or
https://people.debian.org/~tiago/wheezy-bpo/musescore_2.0.0~0-1_amd64.d… for a 64bit system.
In reply to I've just built MuseScore 2.0 by tvaz
It works on my debian wheezy (+backports +kxstudio repos) i386 installation.
Thank you very much
In reply to It works on my debian wheezy by Emiliano Grilli
It doesn't under Mint 17.1 Rebecca
dpkg: des problèmes de dépendances empêchent la configuration de musescore :
musescore dépend de libqt5webkit5 (>= 5.2.0) ; cependant :
La version de libqt5webkit5:amd64 sur le système est 5.1.1-1ubuntu8.
musescore dépend de libqt5quickwidgets5 (>= 5.0.2) ; cependant :
Le paquet libqt5quickwidgets5 n'est pas installé.
In reply to I've just built MuseScore 2.0 by tvaz
Hello Tiago,
Thank you very much for your work. I confirm I was able to install MuseScore 2.0 (using wheezy-backports and libc6/libstdc++ versions from Wheezy).
//people.debian.org/~tiago/wheezy-bpo/musescore_2.0.0~0-1_i386.deb
I did not try the x86_64 pkg yet.
//people.debian.org/~tiago/wheezy-bpo/musescore_2.0.0~0-1_amd64.deb
I guess you should update this page.
//musescore.org/en/download#Linux
to indicate your 2 links : MuseScore 2.0 for Debian 7 (wheezy)
or better push your work to wheezy-backports.
best regards,
Pierrick
Trying to install MuseScore 2 on Mint 17.
I get dependencies uninstalled.
I activated for a moment the repository :
deb http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu utopic main
To solve libqt5designer5 libqt5svg5 libqt5xmlpatterns5 libqt5scripttools5 dependencies
But I couldn't solve libqt5declarative5 dependencies, this way.
It depends on qtbase-abi-5-2-1 which is not on the repos.
On the page http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/libqt5dbus5 I found that qtbase-abi-5-2-1 is seems to be a virtual packages libqt5core5a.
libqt5core5a is already installed but not qtbase-abi-5-2-1
How could I solve that dependency?
Thanks a lot!
In reply to Trying to install MuseScore 2 by harpo_bzh
I use SolydXK that is a Debian compatible distro.
I installed tiago's 2.0~0.1-64bits build the easiest way.
I just downloaded the .deb file, clicked to open it, gdebi opened, told me that it would install 6 more dependencies (all qt5 libs), I typed the su password and agreed.
I didn't unisntall or change anything else.
Until now everything seems to be working.
Very good work. Thank you.
In reply to Trying to install MuseScore 2 by harpo_bzh
Muscore 2.0 running now!
I installedthrough the Ubuntu backport PPA https://launchpad.net/~mscore-ubuntu/+archive/ubuntu/mscore-stable.
Then I had to fixe some depedencies trouble through the process descrobed here:
https://askubuntu.com/questions/140246/how-do-i-resolve-unmet-dependenc…
by a dist upgrade
Now i can discover the new features of MuseScore.
You know what? I m happy.
In reply to Muscore 2.0 running now! I by harpo_bzh
Pour installer la version 2.0.2 de Musescore sur Debian Jessie (la distribution linux la plus simple pour les débutants, et la plus complète aussi) :
1 : éditez votre fichier de sources : /etc/apt/sources.list (avec gedit en root : gedit /etc/apt/sources.list (pour passer en root : taper : su , puis votre mot de passe) et ajouter : deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian jessie-backports main cliquez sur "enregistrer", puis
2 : allez sur le site de Musescore et télécharger the .deb : https://packages.debian.org/jessie-backports/musescore, installez-le (ça s'installe en cliquant dessus, si ça ne marche pas, installez getdeb).
3 : là, il peut y avoir ce message : the dependencies of Musescore-common 2.0 is not satisfied, dans ce cas, cherchez le package manquant sur le site Debian Packages et installez musescore-common2.0.deb .
4 :Maintenant vous avez juste à re-cliquer sur le logiciel d'installation de Musescore, et ça s'installe.
To install version 2.0.2 of MuseScore on Debian Jessie ( the easiest Linux distribution for beginners, and also the most complete ) :
1 : Edit your source file: /etc/apt/sources.list (with gedit as root : gedit /etc/apt/sources.list ( to switch to root: type : su , then your password) and add: deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian jessie -backports main click " Register " and
2 : Go to the site and download the .deb musescore : https://packages.debian.org/jessie-backports/musescore , install it (it is installed by clicking it, if it does not work , install getdeb ) .
3: here, there may be this message : the dependencies of MuseScore 2.0 -common is not satisfied in this case , look for the missing package on the Debian packages site and install musescore - common2.0.deb .
4: Now you just have to click again on the installer of MuseScore , and that's it!
I run Debian Jessie and was able to update from 2RC1 (originally installed manually) to 2.0.2 using the package manager and the Jessie-backports repository.
The package manager didn't pick up all the dependencies and I had to first install qml-module-qtquick2, qml-module-qtquick-controls, qml-module-qtquick-layouts and pulseaudio-utils.
I then had to remove Musescore 2RC1, update musescore-common to v2.0.2 and install Musescore 2.0.2 in that order.
Now it is all set up (I hope) through the repositories. So everything now seems to be set up there officially with no .deb files to worry about.
Ok, yes you have first to remove the ancient musescore files.
And dependancies can be easily found in the Debian Packages sites.
Personally, i just had to remove musescore, and to do what i explained up.
I only hope that for the future updates , developers will make an easier package (with all dependencies) for all Debian users. ^^
In reply to Ok, yes you have first to by benjisan
I only hope that for the future updates , developers will make an easier package (with all dependencies) for all Debian users.
It's already done. You can just 'apt-get install musescore' in your system. Or use your favorite software installer GUI for that.
In reply to I only hope that for the by tvaz
Oh, when did you make it? For the last years, and till a few days ago, when we typed "apt-get install musescore", that was installing the ancient version 1.3 . So are you telling me, you just changed it, in the last few days???
In reply to Oh, when did you make it? For by benjisan
MuseScore2 was uploaded to Debian in Jun 2015. So 2.0.2 is already in Debian Sid (unstable) and Strech (testing, which is quite stable for a desktop enviroment). However, if you really need to keep using Debian Jessie (current stable) you can use the backports repository:
deb http://http.debian.net/debian jessie-backports main
I'd rather suggest people to use Strech if they have no strong reason to keep Jessie:
deb http://http.debian.net/debian/ strech main
After adding one of those in your /etc/apt/sources.lists just do 'sudo apt-get update; sudo apt-get install musescore' and you'll have MuseScore 2.0.2 installed with all dependencies.
In reply to MuseScore2 was uploaded to by tvaz
Am I glad I have PCLinuxOS installed: Just had to go to its repository and installed the latest version 2.0.2. That's it.
In reply to Am I glad I have PCLinuxOS by JoeAlders
You may know that it's only possible because of APT, from Debian :) Btw, it's the very same procedure for Debian users.
In reply to MuseScore2 was uploaded to by tvaz
I think that it's not logical at all : We always have a good reason to install the Stable version (Jessie) ,instead of an Unstable version like Strech. As it's not logical to suggest Strech (instable) to every people instead of Jessie (stable). More and more linux beginners are using Debian today, because of the very complicated new and unstable versions of Ubuntu, and it's better to recommand the right software, not a Level 10 IT software only for IT specialists.
In reply to I think that it's not logical by benjisan
Could you point me what's the 'good reason' here? Surely you may have one, but I'm just curious. I've been a Debian user for 17 years and a Debian developer for 7 years now, also the current MuseScore package maintainer. And I can't just understand what you mean by "Level 10 IT software" when speaking about the Debian testing suite instead of the stable one.
In reply to Could you point me what's the by tvaz
Great, you're a developer. Me not. And that's why i'm not using your developer unstable version of Debian. It's a very good enough reason to use stable Debian version and not unstable.
You have a developer reason to install developer versions of Debian, me not. And many other users seems to do as i.
In reply to Great, you're a developer. Me by benjisan
You definitively didn't get it. Never mind.
In reply to MuseScore2 was uploaded to by tvaz
I appreciate 2.0.2 being placed in the repositories but as you can see I had a bit of work to get it installed. As in my post above, the package manager wasn't able to pull in some of the dependencies and I had to first install those before Musescore would install.
I don't think it is too difficult to set up Jessie to load from the backports but I can understand that someone without computer knowledge may not find it intuitive to go through the extra steps that I had to. Is it not possible to make it fully automatic?
In reply to I appreciate 2.0.2 being by hughtmccullough
It's very simple to understand: you have a stable system, and it's stable because there's no new packages with new features being added to it all the time. MuseScore is a perfect example. Its 2.0 version was released after we had Debian stable (Jessie) released and it depends on many libraries which are not stable, so if we make MuseScore 2 in Debian stable, Debian becomes unstable. If we extend this 'favor' to all the new packages being released out there, Debian becomes really unstable. That's why we have a named "unstable" suite (repository) in Debian. Also, in the middle we have a "testing" suite, which contains only packages which have been added to "unstable" and have been there for a few weeks without any serious bug reported. But, we still have another option, which are the backport repositories, that allows you to add new packages being even less intrusive to your stable system. All this can be managed by a GUI interface in the system with a few clicks. Unfortunately we need to know a little bit how the system work. Like a car, you need to know the basics to drive it. I'm sorry if one wants to use Debian or any derivative without taking a few minutes to know the basics (not your case, I know).
3.1 Which Debian distribution (stable/testing/unstable) is better for me?
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-choosing.en.html#s3.1
In reply to It's very simple to by tvaz
Sorry, i'm not agree with you.
The only "no new" package which is existing for Debian Stable, is only the Musescore 2.0.2 package. No other software has got this point of view to do not accept to work for Stable Version of Debian. It's your unique position, you have to admit it.
For many months the only one package whose wasn't updated to the last stable version was the Musescore package, cause of your point of view.
Debian Jessie (Stable) is nowadays the only one version recommended for all users (included beginners). Strech is not for beginners and most users, you know that, it's only for people like you.
And Sid is worst.
In reply to Sorry, i'm not agree with by benjisan
Are you being serious? Anyway, I've just seen all this has been patiently explained to you by a MuseScore developer in another thread, and it seems you didn't care listening to him. So let's stop this troll right now. I'm happy for having musescore 2.0 in Debian. It was a lot of effort and interactions from me and other developers, and in the end we have a fully work package being installed by thousand of users around in a few clicks. I can't do anything if you don't have the minimal idea how Debian works and if you don't care about learning the basics. The really bad thing is you're spreading totally wrong information in this forum.
In reply to "The only "no new" package by tvaz
Sorry, YOU are trolling, not me. And YOU are telling bad informations, not me. So, YOU have to stop it.
In reply to I appreciate 2.0.2 being by hughtmccullough
Yes it's possible, but developers of Musescore have the bizarre point of view to only develop for Unstable Debian. They can make it easier, of course, but they just don't want to. That's all.
In reply to I appreciate 2.0.2 being by hughtmccullough
tiagovaz,
This was meant to be a serious comment but I seem to have got caught up in a war of words between you and a rather hard-to-please user. In my post yesterday I mentioned some dependencies that weren't pulled in when I tried to use the package manager to install 2.0.2. Is there something set up not quite correctly in the package? I thought that installing from the backports should be straightforward but I had these issues to deal with. If the fault is with my system then that is OK but if there is something not quite right in the package - a sort of bug - would it be possible to fix it for other people? A lot of people could find it difficult to do what I had to do.
I was trying to be helpful.
In reply to Ok, yes you have first to by benjisan
@benjisan hopefully to answer your request "I only hope that for the future updates , developers will make an easier package (with all dependencies) for all Debian users", we have an initiative going on to provide the next MuseScore as an AppImage package. You can follow up the developments at #95541: Portable Linux build (AppImage)
Does anyone know when Musescore 2.0.3 will be available in Debian repos?
2.0.2 has an annoying bug that launchs a separate window written "loading" and it stays there all the time you're using mscore. I read a bug report saying that it's fixed on 2.0.3 but, I don't know why, 2.0.3 is taking so long to be available.
In reply to Does anyone know when by fernandoamartin
It hasn't been released yet on any OS. No official release date planned, just "when it's ready". You're welcome to install and help test a nightly build (see Downloads link at right of this page).
In reply to It hasn't been released yet by Marc Sabatella
Hi Marc, if you point me the patch for this particular issue I can make a new 2.0.2 package with this fix for Debian. If you think such patch may bring some instability we can wait for the 2.0.3 release.
In reply to Hi Marc, if you point me the by tvaz
If is says 2.0.2 on the tin, it should contain 2.0.2. So better wait for 2.0.3...
In reply to If is says 2.0.2 on the tin, by Jojo-Schmitz
It's very usual in Debian to have a package_version+20160305.gita107cef or something, so no worries about that.
In reply to It's very usual in Debian to by tvaz
I find it quite annoying to see a bug report where Version and git SHA don't match
In reply to I find it quite annoying to by Jojo-Schmitz
Hi, I think I didn't understand what you meant. How can a musescore_2.0.2+2015-08-28-09-52-f07d7bb package be different from upstream in a bug report?
Remember musescore 2.0.2 is not in Debian stable. It's totally fine (and quite useful) to have non-released upstream software in unstable and testing suites. But if you think the nightly or pre-releases builds are too unstable I can push them to the experimental suite. Or, as I said before, I can just apply a little patch to this particular problem and make it clear in the version name and in the package changelog.
Over the years Debian has developed many ways to deal with this very usual problem.
In reply to Hi, I think I didn't by tvaz
f07d7bb is not 2.0.2, but a commit from master. It isn't even from 28th of August 2015, but from a day before that.
If you want to add another patch on top, it gets even worse, as that won't be in the musescore repository at all.
2.0.2 is f51dc11 Jul 16th Juli 2015, so f07d7bb is more than a month newer and an entirely different code stream, so it should rather be named musescore_master+2015-08-27-09-52-f07d7bb
In reply to f07d7bb is not 2.0.2, but a by Jojo-Schmitz
f07d7bb was just a (bad) example, but you may have got what I mean = packaging a commit which is > 2.0.2 and which fixes that annoying bug. And then making it clear to the user that it's the 2.0.2 version + something else. I'll understand if you say that this patch is unstable and may break core features. But so far I didn't get any good reason to not get it fixed in the Debian (and so Ubuntu/Mint/etc) package.
Also, it's not a problem at all to apply a single patch on top of a release. Debian has its own patch structure provided for this situation. There are thousands of packages in Debian with patches like that, which will be removed in the future as soon as a new upstream releases with a fix.
edit: ok, you added something new in your comment: yes, we can also have this solution of adding a new renamed package and keep the 2.0.2. That's fine too.
In reply to f07d7bb was just a (bad) by tvaz
Those commits' SHA's won't help us here at all as they are not available in MuseScore git repository.
2.0.2 is 2.0.2, period. If you use something else, come up with an entirely different version/naming, so it is blatantly clear that this is not any commit from the official MuseScore code repository and that support for that comes from somewhere else.
This is my opinion at least. Let's see what lasconic has to say about this.
In reply to Those commits' SHA's won't by Jojo-Schmitz
The real problem is not with the Debian version numbers (which most users will never see since they just run
apt-get musescore). The real problem lies with the fact that the revision number displayed in MuseScore's Help -> About dialog box is incorrect in the Debian packages (bug is for Ubuntu but its the same packages). To get the real revision number, the commandmake revisionmust be run beforemakeandmake installinside debian/rules (see this page).However, the command
make revisionwill only work inside a git repository, therefore it must be done as part of theget-orig-sourcetarget inside debian/rules. Something like this:File: debian/rules
Of course, the tag "v2.0.3" in the git clone command really needs to be generic, something like "v$(ver)", and there are more things that need to be done to tidy up the git repository. See https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source for futher details.
@tiagovaz, I maintain the Ubuntu PPA so I can produce a patch to do this for you if you want. Let me know where I can send it to you.
In reply to Hi Marc, if you point me the by tvaz
Of all the bug fixes made since 2.0.2, this wouldn't make a top 50 list of most important to provide a patch for. If you're going to go to the troublew of making a patch, it should be for something that leads to crashes or corruptions or some other critical bug - not a minor start up annoyance. And from a support perspective, I don't think it makes sense to do this at all, not when we are working to make 2.0.3 ready.
In reply to Of all the bug fixes made by Marc Sabatella
You could just use the stuff from https://launchpad.net/~mscore-ubuntu/+archive/ubuntu/mscore-nightly, if you need a 2.0.3 preview
In reply to You could just use the stuff by Jojo-Schmitz
2.0.2 from debian repos really works and is enough stable. I don't understand why it isn't on stable branch. It never crashed for me at all. (I use debian testing repos.)
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to let tiagovaz push some of the nightly versions of 2.3 to debian testing and unstable? Probably some of them will work and debian testing and unstable are the right place to test things.
At first I thought the "loading" bug was a minor issue. However when we are using musescore to study it becomes a major annoyance. For example, sometimes I find myself typing a score while having 2 or 3 pdf's and firefox open to consult references. Then often I switch to the wrong musescore window (the "loading window"). Probably it may happen to any music student if he opens several reference works at the same time.
Another issue: If I install musescore from a debian repo I'll get an update when a new version is released. But if I donwload a nightly build from musescore site and install it I don't know if it ever be updated or if it will keep held.
In reply to 2.0.2 from debian repos by fernandoamartin
Ok. There are several problems here. I will try to comment as a developer, not a debian user, not a debian packager.
1/ The loading dialog. This is a bug in Qt 5.5 release. MuseScore 2.0.2 is supposed to be built with Qt 5.4, not Qt 5.5, so it's not a bug in MuseScore. If debian does build with Qt 5.5, it's debian responsibility to fix this bug. To play nicely, MuseScore will have a workaround in 2.0.3 when it will be released. If a user can't wait, he can use the 2.0.3 app images nightlies (and don't forget they are nightlies...) or different distribution with MuseScore compiled with Qt 5.4.
2/ If Debian releases a 2.0.2 version with anything more or less than the tagged version 2.0.2 in MuseScore master, then any bug report from debian (and derivative) users will be a pain to deal with... They might report on MuseScore.org behaviors that are different because of the patches and will use alien commit SHAs.
3/ I would love to have the most recent version of MuseScore in Debian Stable but apparently this is not possible. No software is updated on Debian stable (except IceWeasel?). So if Debian users wants to get the latest greatest they have to wait for next stable, use backports, or use testing which is a pain for many unexperienced users. If it's too painful, they should use another distribution.
4/ To use a stable MuseScore 2.0.3, just wait a couple of weeks... it will come when it's ready.
In fact, i think you' re wrong.
Why ? The Software is ready, but hard to do the installation, because of no council and no clear instructions in the website for this.
I'm not a Debian Developper, and i'm not a Linux Developper, i'm not a Developper at all. But i just saw an error in the dependencies. (Musescore-commun). When i installed the dependency, the package installation worked very well, after configuring the source.list . So, it's not a problem of a Debian version, it's : 1 No clear human instruction for the installation. 2 A dependency not included in the package. I use Debian Jessie every day, and i assure you, that all is working very well.
In reply to In fact, i think you' re by benjisan
MuseScore's Debian packages install on Debian in the same way as every other package on Debian so there's no need for specific instructions. Same is true for the backports, which install just like all other Debian backports. Admittedly the existence of the backports isn't advertised very prominently, but this is presumably done deliberately because they can leave a system in a dependency mess and as such are not officially supported.
In reply to In fact, i think you' re by benjisan
Why would we need instruction to install a package on debian? It should be as easy as
apt-get install musescore. If it's not the case, it's a packaging problem, so it's a bug in debian, and it should be filed and fixed there. I can't see any bugs with musescore-common or dependencies error here https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=musescore For what I know, even musescore-common is a debian construct... there is no such a thing in MuseScore source code.In reply to Why would we need instruction by [DELETED] 5
musescore-common is a package of all architecture independent files (basically everything except for the mscore executable itself) while the musescore package only contains architecture dependent files. When a user types "
apt-get install musescore" the correct musescore package for their architecture is installed, as well as musescore-common. This is standard practice on Debian, simply to save space in the repositories. It works very well as a system, so if there's a problem it is most likely with the user's machine, probably as a result of trying to upgrade using a non-standard method.In reply to musescore-common is a package by shoogle
Sure I understand that. It's a standard practice *on Debian* and it makes perfect sense in the Debian context but, it's not MuseScore's business per se. It's a packaging detail, on Debian.
In reply to Sure I understand that. It's by [DELETED] 5
Yes, of course; if there is a problem then it's up to Debian to fix it.
In reply to Yes, of course; if there is a by shoogle
And I'm happy to help of course.