Any objections to doing the same in Kubuntu when next cycle opens? Some interesting follow-ups:
> On 11 September 2017 at 20:03, Diederik de Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > - hide quoted text - >> On Monday, September 11, 2017 10:35:54 AM CEST Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez >> Meyer wrote: >>> With a package in this state I would normally just go ahead and ask >>> the removal, but I know lots of people love amarok... >> >> There's a good chance that only developers watch this list. If you (also) >> want >> to reach 'normal' users, consider posting it to debian-kde as well > > Just developers, at this point there is no use in asking users. A > different story would have been if all we needed is manpower. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Removing amarok Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:35:54 -0300 From: Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <[email protected]> To: Debian KDE Talk <[email protected]> Hi everybody! I'm considering asking for the RoM removal of amarok from the archive. It has plenty of bugs, no active upstream (aka dead upstream) and no finished port to Qt5. With a package in this state I would normally just go ahead and ask the removal, but I know lots of people love amarok... My suggestion for them would be to get it from stable until they find a suitable replacement. But the truth is that it currently does not belongs in Buster and there is no signal of having a chance to avoid it. Does anyone has anything against this? Kinds regards, Lisandro. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
