Should we remove amarok?

[Scott Kitterman]

On May 17, 2018 4:56:29 PM UTC, "Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer" <perezmeyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 17 May 2018 at 12:07, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
><perezmeyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> El jueves, 17 de mayo de 2018 11:59:12 -03 Lisandro Damián Nicanor
>Pérez Meyer
>> escribió:
>>> Hi! Amarok is currently unbuildable on unstable because of a missing
>>> dependency (#877295) and soon it will be a double issue trough
>#896941.
>>>
>>> I know that there is an upstream effort to provide a Qt5-based
>amarok, but
>>> does that means we should keep it unbuildable in unstable?
>>>
>>> I would simply prefer to remove it, but maybe I am missing something
>here.
>>> So, if you have any thoughts on why we should not remove it, please
>do say
>>> so.
>
>I have just communicated with Pino. He told me that he is interested
>in keeping amarok
>in shape but due different reasons he was not able to do it yet. I
>proposed him to handle
>it myself if I get to it first.
>
>Both bugs seems to be solvable by removing deps +/- touching some
>files if needed.

It doesn't sound to me like it's currently suitable for release.  What about uploading a building version to experimental, removing from unstable, and then if a modernized version appears, it can go to unstable again without getting stuck in New.

Scott K