| scott-work | good morning | 15:07 |
|---|---|---|
| astraljava | o/ | 15:53 |
| scott-work | i have a question for the channel, probably will shoot it to the mailing list too | 17:50 |
| scott-work | how do people feel about ubuntu studio being officially recognized as an LTS release for 12.04 | 17:50 |
| scott-work | ? | 17:50 |
| astraljava | Yes, we can do that. I was thinking about the same when Xubuntu had their discussion and proposal accepted just this week. | 17:52 |
| scott-work | astraljava: one of my questions is...do we need to? | 17:56 |
| astraljava | No, we don't need to. | 17:56 |
| scott-work | canonical will already be supporting the foundation packages already for ubuntu/xubuntu/kubuntu/et al | 17:57 |
| scott-work | i suppose for appearances it would be nice though....and respect | 17:57 |
| astraljava | Derivates can choose to, or not to. | 17:57 |
| scott-work | i don't think we can honestly expect LTS support for particular a/v/g packages though | 17:57 |
| astraljava | That's the thing, we should be ready and willing to provide that support. | 17:58 |
| scott-work | right | 17:58 |
| scott-work | i am leaning to asking for LTS designation for ubuntu studio, unless others are oppossed to it | 17:58 |
| scott-work | given the way libraries change and the development of things like ardour (and maybe jack) there is an upper boundry condition to our LTS support for a/v/g packages within two years, much less four or five though | 17:59 |
| scott-work | astraljava: ^^^ | 17:59 |
| astraljava | We could vote for it, if we got decent amount of contributors in one of our formal meetings. That would probably have to happen in the next January meeting, though. | 18:00 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!