The unity source currently will FTBFS on the new glib in bionic-proposed, probably something that would have to be resolved. Fails on some headless tests, the current unity appears to run fine with the new glib (and anything else currently in -proposed ), just won’t build…
The fix is in this branch: https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/unity/track-more-objects
Although there are few more tests which throws error but in the end compiles fine. We need a full time dev for unity to fix those test errors.
Well it’s not building again in proposed. This time I think some error with cmake or gcc. The latest version of cmake just landed. I think it needs rebuild against new cmake.
Does anyone know how to build ppa with proposed enabled on launchpad?
See log here: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/3138/+packages
Can anyone help here? @dale-f-beaudoin @mc3man
CMake Error at plugins/unityshell/CMakeLists.txt:1 (find_package):
By not providing “FindCompiz.cmake” in CMAKE_MODULE_PATH this project has
asked CMake to find a package configuration file provided by “Compiz”, but
CMake did not find one.Could not find a package configuration file provided by “Compiz” with any
of the following names:CompizConfig.cmake compiz-config.cmakeAdd the installation prefix of “Compiz” to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH or set
“Compiz_DIR” to a directory containing one of the above files. If “Compiz”
provides a separate development package or SDK, be sure it has been
installed.
Definitely from new cmake. Maybe try 1st. rebuilding compiz with the new cmake, then unity off of that compiz build. (assuming compiz builds…)
If you want to set up a ppa using proposed click on “Edit PPA dependencies” & add Proposed
A quick test here shows that it would build again using rebuilt compiz but does fail on a headless test -
which one not sure, i386 & amd64 seem to fail differently. If I disable the tests no issue but obviously that not an option for you all…
Thanks.
Yes compiz builds fine against latest gcc and mesa 18.x. But unity fails.
What are the current thoughts on LightDM vs GDM as the display manager for Ubuntu Unity?
I ask because, although I truly like (and in many ways prefer) LightDM, it seems that Unity8 is no longer compatible with LightDM, but Unity8 will be compatible with GDM. So if Ubuntu Unity relies on LightDM, those of us who want install and test Unity8 on Ubuntu Unity will need to reconfigure it to use GDM instead.
We are using lightdm and will be using lightdm. If unity8 is not compatible then file a bug for unity8.
1 Like
Well, maybe I’m wrong, and maybe Unity8 will eventually work with LightDM. But that doesn’t seem to be the direction that Unity8 is going.
In any case, like I wrote before, I truly like (and in many ways prefer) LightDM. But I imagine that I’m not the only person who would like to install Unity8 on Ubuntu Unity, and so I wanted to be sure you are aware of the situation.
Apologies, I caused this confusion by mentioning both the existing setup under lightdm and what’s needed to work under GDM. The problem doesn’t lie with either display manager and the solution should apply to both.
In the past, under logind, Unity8 has not accessed input or graphics directly, but used a privileged unity-system-compositor process to provide these through “Mir-on-Mir”. The problem alluded to in the linked article is that “Mir-on-Mir” is no longer supported because to do so would require additional distro patches to mesa.
The specific issue is that to access input as an unprivileged user shell (i.e. without unity-system-compositor) Unity8 needs to request permission from logind. That’s a Mir enhancement (@raof) is working on.
I described this as “working with GDM” simply because that’s now the default on the desktop, not because GDM is a requirement.
1 Like
Can you make a meta package for a minimal install for Unity, just as Ubuntu default is doing now? Just the DE and a browser.
1 Like
Yes I plan to do that. 
1 Like
I agree with having a minimal install option. Most people have their own “favorite app” for various tasks and its hard to second guess what apps should/shouldn’t be added.
1 Like
Excellent!
@chanath Can you try creating a new iso from bionic base image ?
@khurshid-alam Not in next 2 weeks. I won’t have time, sorry.
Where is the project at the moment? Does anyone need me to test anything on a VM?
Why not make use of the new minimal installation option of Ubiquity?
1 Like
I have been running the latest unity iso for a few weeks with no issue specific to unity to report other than ctrl+alt+T to start the terminal lags sometimes (same issue with Ubunu 17.10 unity session but seems to be getting better) Actually gnome seems to be way more unstable.
Ditto the @davidboom question. I can test on a full install. So far, everything I’ve tried works. My only reservation is the direction Nautilus has taken. Nemo has far more functionality for handling the desktop, but I can work with it until Nemo without Cinnamon dependencies becomes available.
It’s ironic @kammon101 that my observation is almost the same. I have a few “splats” a day with the GNOME desktop, but the terminal opens normally. Ubuntu-Unity seems quite stable.
How is @dale-f-beaudoin doing? My next trip to the back surgeon is tomorrow. Hope you are doing well sir.