ubuntu-unity-remix official flavor
Steve Langasek
steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Sat Jan 6 00:45:41 UTC 2018
Hi Dale,
Happy New Year! I wanted to follow up on this thread since I haven't seen
any activity after the December 5 Technical Board meeting.
At that time, the agreed next action was:
20:34 <stgraber> #agreed unity flavor team to send a list of source
packages related to the unity flavor and gather agreement from team
members to be responsible for maintaining those codebase upstream and in
Ubuntu
(http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2017/ubuntu-meeting-2.2017-12-05-20.02.log.html)
Has there been any progress on this that you'd like us to discuss?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:58:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Dale,
>
> Apologies for not replying sooner to this. I know you've put this on the
> agenda for this week's Tech Board meeting, and I'm only now posting my
> follow-up questions, which will give you practically no time to collect
> answers. Still, I'm posting here so that we have a record of the questions,
> and we can discuss further as necessary both during the IRC meeting and
> afterwards.
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:13:44AM +0000, Dale Beaudoin wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > My name is Dale Beaudoin and I am the project owner of unity7
> > maintainers team: https://launchpad.net/~unity7maintainers
>
> > Unity7 Maintainers Team in Launchpad
> > launchpad.net
> > Unity7 Maintainers Team is a community based team that will focus on
> > maintaining depends and testing various aspects of apps and app
> > behaviour. Some specific packages ...
> > and I am also team captain of https://launchpad.net/~u+1 which is a
> > community based testing team and I am seeking official status for the
> > flavor ubuntu-unity-amd64.iso (and) currently defined as Ubuntu Unity 7
> > Desktop Experience. I make this request on the suggestion of Will Cooke
> > and many others from the Ubuntu Community who have joined the unity7
> > maintainers team.
>
> This post did see some discussion during the previous TB meeting, and the
> main concern raised is whether this project is sustainable. All of our
> flavors have upstreams for their desktop components that have a demonstrated
> track record of maintaining this software. We certainly cannot expect a
> desktop such as Unity to continue to work without developers actively
> working on the software.
>
> Which source packages in the archive are you proposing that this package
> will maintain as part of this flavor? Which source packages are you relying
> on others to maintain?
>
> Does your team have an existing track record of uploading to the Ubuntu
> archive those packages that you will be maintaining? Which source packages,
> and which members of your team? Are the members of your team who have done
> these uploads committed to carrying this work forward? (To be specific: I
> see several members on your team who are Canonical employees and may be
> emotionally invested in the project, and have uploaded these packages in the
> past when they were maintained by Canonical; but this does not necessarily
> mean they are personally committed to shouldering this work going forward.)
>
> Who on your team has upload rights to the packages in this set? Who are you
> proposing should have upload rights?
>
>
> > U+1 - Ubuntu Development Releases Testing Team in Launchpad
> > launchpad.net
> > Visit the team wiki at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/U+1 for more information.
> > U+1 is a self-managed and independent team, dedicated to testing the
> > Development Releases of ...
>
> > I have built an experimental ISO based on 18.04 cycle here:
> > http://people.ubuntu.com/~twocamels/?_ga=2.202611921.1395504858.1510562354-489780228.1413308918
>
> > and am working with team captain, Khurshid Alam to set up other
> > infrastructure to get this project rolling in the right direction.
>
>
> > Khurshid has created a meta package here:
> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-unity-meta
> >
> > Source code(git here:
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~unity7maintainers/ubuntu-unity-meta/+git/ubuntu-unity-meta
> >
> > and PPA(binary) here:
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~unity7maintainers/+recipe/ubuntu-unity-meta-daily3
>
> > Martin Wimpress suggested I write to the Technical Board to request that
> > Ubuntu Unity 7 Desktop Experience have offical status. Other discussion
> > can be found here:
> > https://community.ubuntu.com/t/test-daily-current-ubuntu-unity-amd64-iso/1685/15
>
>
> > Test daily/current ubuntu-unity-amd64.iso
> > community.ubuntu.com
> > I uninstalled gnome-settings-daemon first, just to see what’d happen. It
> > didn’t ask me to autoremove. Then uninstalled
> > gnome-settings-daemon-schemas. It asked me to autoremove a lot of
> > packages, so I reinstalled those packages as manually installed. With
> > them, gnome-settings-daemon-schemas also got installed back. The thing
> > is, there should be a meta-package for ubuntu-unity, just as it was for
> > ubuntu-gnome, so the guys can look after the packages, rather than keep
> > on remastering a downloaded ...
> > and here:
> > https://community.ubuntu.com/t/unity-7-continuation-call-for-developers-and-supporters/736/164
>
> > Well, I hope this all helps.
>
> > Thank you for your patience. If I have left anything out then please
> > guide me what to do next.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
> Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
> slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20180105/d4e7f1cc/attachment.sig>
More information about the technical-board
mailing list