Should we remove amarok?

[Sune Vuorela]

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:34:52 PM CET Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.

Isn't it time to kill it?

There is the following chain of interest:

We would like to remove QtWebkit in qt4 edition. That requires disabling 
QtWebkit support in libplasma (kde4libs edition). This exposes symbols so a 
transition is needed / package name change is needed.
The only plasma user is amarok.

So, I'm proposing to RoM/QA amarok, and then we can get rid of qtwebkit.

/Sune
-- 
I didn’t stop pretending when I became an adult, it’s just that when I was a 
kid I was pretending that I fit into the rules and structures of this world. 
And now that I’m an adult, I pretend that those rules and structures exist.
   - zefrank