Ubuntu Unity participation in LTS
Steve Langasek
steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Tue Dec 19 18:11:16 UTC 2023
Hi Rudra,
I'm resending the below email and cc:ing Maik this time, as I have not
gotten any response to the remaining questions. Since you mentioned having
trouble receiving the previous email, I had pinged you about this twice on
IRC but did not receive a response there either.
While the Ubuntu Unity flavor appears to be in generally good shape for
24.04 LTS, being unable to reach the flavor lead via the standard
communication channels of the Ubuntu project is concerning.
Other than this, if you can address my request below, I'm happy to recommend
Ubuntu Unity for LTS status to the TB.
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 09:53:08AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 05:49:59PM +0530, Rudra Saraswat wrote:
> > Thank you for your response.
> > > Flavor's support plan presented to Tech Board and approved; support plan
> > > should indicate period of time if beyond 18 months (3 yrs or 5 yr), key
> > > contacts, and setting expectations as to level of support.
> > As with our previous non-LTS releases, we expect to support the LTS for 3
> > years, not 5.
> Ok.
> > Maik is in fact on IRC ("Maik" on Libera).
> Ok; note that this is not the IRC nick listed on the referenced wiki page :)
> > We plan to continue maintaining the Unity package set, releasing fixes for
> > bugs and security issues, as well as any issues that might prop up in other
> > related packages in general use by Ubuntu Unity users.
> > > Since Canonical is no longer the upstream for Unity, do you
> > > yourself the upstream now for the unity packages? I see
> > > debian/control for the unity source package still points
> > > https://launchpad.net/unity, but this is owned by ~unity-team
> > > has only ubuntu-core-dev and Canonical employees as members.
> > > latest unity package has an upstream version number
> > > '7.7.0+23.04.20230222.2' but there is no corresponding .orig.tar.xz
> > > as part of the source, this is a native package; the debian/watch
> > > file also points back at https://launchpad.net/unity, which has 7.4.0
> > > as its latest release tarball. So it is entirely unclear to me what
> > > the version number in this package is meant to indicate.
> > Most of our development revolves around the main 'unity' package,
> > which is in active development, while the other packages are, like you
> > mentioned, in maintenance mode. (unless there are significant changes
> > necessitated by changes in the main Unity codebase)
> > We haven't added any releases to the Unity Launchpad project, as it
> > simply serves as a host for the Launchpad Unity Git repository and
> > meets our needs. mitya57, a core-dev and member of our team and
> > package uploader, helps up keep
> > https://gitlab.com/ubuntu-unity/unity/unity (where we maintain the
> > Unity codebase) and the Launchpad repo in sync, which is used as an
> > upstream for all the distributions that offer Unity, and the Launchpad
> > repo is just used to build the Unity packages, nothing more.
> If https://gitlab.com/ubuntu-unity/unity/unity is where you are doing
> upstream development, could you please update the metadata in the package to
> reflect this?
> > Sorry for the late response btw. It was only a few minutes ago that I
> > realized you had already replied (I just received jbicha's email), as
> > I haven't received either of your two replies for some reason.
> Nothing late about it, we have months yet before these discussions need to
> be concluded.
--
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 https://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: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20231219/65354f01/attachment.sig>
More information about the technical-board
mailing list