ubuntu-unity-remix official flavor

Steve Langasek steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Tue Dec 5 19:58:05 UTC 2017

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

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.

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/20171205/3f8d3a32/attachment.sig>

More information about the technical-board mailing list