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/ > [email protected] [email protected] -- 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/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
