[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-05-19 Thread Sarazar
I am very much disappointed by the decision re: amarok1.4 and Amarok 2. There is one really glaring issue that I find amazing. The lack of a resonable media device manager with out Amarok1.4. It seems to be the flavour of the month and a very Microsoft attitude to release incomplete software in

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-04-24 Thread Sean Fitzpatrick
I'd like to add my voice to the disappointment over the Amarok changes - 1.4 was my favourite player, by a long shot - I have a large music collection and the tree view (with genre-artist-album sorting) made things very easy - Rhythmbox, Banshee, etc are very awkward by comparison. I use Gnome

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-04-05 Thread saamiel
Hi! I have been using linux distributions from a 1 year, and to me how doesn't know much about linux programs, I'am just a simple user I was very fond of Amarok 1.x version. It was my favorite music player and it was very sophisticated in many ways. After reading the discussions above I

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-03-28 Thread Darwin Survivor
I would also like to add my vote to having amarok1.4 in Jaunty. Not only is 1.4 the best music player I have EVER used and the fact that 2.0 is missing MANY features, I can't even get it to play an mp3 file. I installed the ubuntu-restricted-extras package but amarok still crashes when trying to

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-03-28 Thread Jonathan Thomas
This is quite impossible, which is why this bug is marked as Won't Fix. Amarok 1.x itself has been officially marked as unmaintained by the Amarok developers, and according to policy we cannot adding new packages of unmaintained software. Amarok 1.x in a KDE4-only environment such as Kubuntu

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-03-26 Thread Bakon Jarser
@Harald Sitter The point in discussing this is that amarok 1.4 is one of the most popular music players in linux and amarok 2 is not an acceptable replacement for lots (maybe most) amarok users. -- [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/316889 You

Re: [Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-03-23 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
Hi AlterEgo, It would be nice to do that, but I doubt I'll find the time to do it soon. I'm considering a few other bugs too (the Wikipedia display hasn't been working for a while, and I'd like to use the new notification system for the OSD), but I'll be quite busy with work for the next month at

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-03-18 Thread AlterEgo
Hi Bogdan Butnaru , I really appreciate your Amarok 1.4 packages. Are you considering updating those packages according to: [USN-739-1] Amarok vulnerabilities? Many thanks! -- [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/316889 You received this bug

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-03-12 Thread Chen Levy
I also wish for a simple way to install Amarok 1.4. Last I looked at it (version 2.0.1 with Alpha-5), the pod-caching support in Amarok 2 was significantly inferior to that in version 1.4 (No obvious way to organize podcasts in folders, or to drag and drop an episode to a filesystem's folder.)

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-02-25 Thread Bao2
Thanks Bogdan. What I did is restore Ubuntu 8.10 from my backup with SystemRescueCD/partimage and I am again with Amarok 1.4 and Ubuntu 8.10 The thing in Amarok 2 I more dislike is the new thing in the middle to show pictures and so. You can't get rid of it (I couldn't do) and it is annoying. If

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-02-10 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
Bao2 (and others interested): There is now a build of Amarok 1.4 (derived from the last version that was in Jaunty) in my PPA: https://edge.launchpad.net/~bogdanb/+archive/ppa These have received _really_ minimal testing, so read the warnings first, but they should work. The binary packages are

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-02-07 Thread Bao2
Hey, I love you decided only ship Jaunty with Amarok 2. Really... a good idea. Well, someone knows how can I install Amarok 1.4 (the newer one is just a sh--t) -- [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/316889 You received this bug

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-02-07 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
Bao2, you can go to https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+package/amarok and https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+package/amarok-common and download the last 1.4 package for your architecture. Then you have to remove amarok in aptitude, install the downloaded deb files manually (I think I

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-02-07 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
Actually, I'm not so sure about the part with gdebi --apt-line”. I don't remember exactly how I installed the deb files, a double click might have been enough (but make sure you start with amarok-common and then install amarok itself). You can also get the source package for amarok, hack it so

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-01-19 Thread Alex Ott
I also vote for keep old version of amarok in jaunty - new version has less features - for example, less conditions in smart playlists and so on. New version also doesn't take into account songs ratings from the older version on upgrade, and requires re-categorization of the all songs once

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-01-19 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
By the way, I consider loss of ratings as a grave loss-of-user-data bug (they are manually entered). That is very bad even for an alpha release (though it's the only data I _do_ have backups for...) Anyway, isn't it usual policy to enter non-backwards-compatible packages with a different name? I

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-01-19 Thread Harald Sitter
We also have a policy about software that is unmaintained upstream. And Amarok1 is unmaintained upstream. Anyway, if you get it past the archive admins even with this issue you can probably maintain an amarok1 package in universe. Please understand that we don't have the resources to maintain 2

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-01-19 Thread Bogdan Butnaru
Certainly, I wasn't suggesting we should actually maintain it. But it should* have been easy to just demote the last version of Amarok 1.4 we had to universe/multiverse and leave it like that. (* I have no idea, really.) Actually, I think even just removing the amarok package completely and

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-01-19 Thread Harald Sitter
There is no point in discussing this. The replacement already happend and can't be reversed anyway. Also I don't see a reason why someone would be willingly exposing themselfs to secruity threats caused by using unmaintained software. -- [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

[Bug 316889] Re: [jaunty] we should have both Amarok 2.x and Amarok 1.4

2009-01-13 Thread Steve Stalcup
I can appreciate your wanting to hang on to an older version of Amarok, but we will be using current releases of Amarok in Jaunty. Our goal is to have as few KDE 3.5 applications and associated libs as possible in Jaunty. ** Changed in: amarok (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided = Low