Deprecating Old Amarok Versions

[Luigi Toscano]

Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 15:28, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it
> <mailto:luigi.toscano at tiscali.it>> wrote:
> 
>     Jonathan Riddell ha scritto:
>     > I'd like to propose deprecating old Amarok versions which are still on
>     > download in the stable directory https://download.kde.org/stable/amarok/ 
>     >
> 
>     What do you mean by deprecating? I don't think we never did it. What is the
>     harm on leaving them as they are, as we did with all the other software
>     before?
> 
> 
> Removing from https://kde.org/applications/

You can't remove it. You should move to the unsupported area, like all the
other unsupported software. You can't and should not delete the history.


> Removing from download.kde.org <http://download.kde.org>

Removing the tarball? No, otherwise we should do it for all the other old
software as well (and I guess there may be issue with the license). I think
that sysadmins move old versions to Attic/ from time to time, but before
moving one of the last programs to be unsupported there are many others that
should do them. But there is really no gain in moving stuff around for no
reasons. No gain and more work for the sysadmins.

> Sending out a notice that is it deprecated and unsupported.

This is already well known around. Gentoo and Archlinux already removed all Qt
4 stuff long ago. Debian is doing it right now (amarok was not even in the
last stable release), and I guess Ubuntu is following.


>     > Phonon no longer provides Qt 4 bindings so it is not usable with the rest of
>     > current KDE software.
>     >
> 
>     If this is the only reason, then I don't think it's strong enough. As Harald
>     wrote, the old version of phonon can be co-installed, if someone really want:
>     https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-distro-packagers/2019-August/000383.html
> 
>     and I can confirm that it's working.
> 
> 
> Qt 4 hasn't been supported since 2015.  Phonon no longer support it.  KDE
> needs to take responsibility for the software it puts out and not leave it up
> to other organisations to decide what the status is of our software.

That's fine, but I think that the message has been and is clear enough for
everyone. It looks like you want to persecute amarok no for no real reason,
inconsistently with the way everything else has been handled.
Again, there is nothing to do more than what it has been already done.

-- 
Luigi