<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with yunit]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with yunit]]></description><link>https://forums.ubports.com/tags/yunit</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 May 2026 02:17:44 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forums.ubports.com/tags/yunit.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2017 01:56:06 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Collaboration between ubports and yunit projects.]]></title><description><![CDATA[Hi guys! about this topic I didn't read any news about the collaboration between ubport and yunit team and I'm curious to know if it is already reality or a work in progress.
For what I understand yunit has successfully ported unity code on debian stable and is backporting  to 16.04. will this migration  to 16.04 be useful for ubport too?
is it still possible to merge all the fixes and update both projects had done on their branch?
Also I would like to know if there is some sort of collaboration between ubport (and yunit) with the canonical mir team
about the mir support by canonical this is the actual situation
Also mate team seems interested in a mir-based wayland compositor/client. is the collaboration between all those project on this common objective  possible  and already started?
I hope in some news in the next Community Update 
bye guys and thank you!
]]></description><link>https://forums.ubports.com/topic/175/collaboration-between-ubports-and-yunit-projects</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.ubports.com/topic/175/collaboration-between-ubports-and-yunit-projects</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Aury88]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2017 01:56:06 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ubports and unity8org]]></title><description><![CDATA[Just for the record: Unity8org just got renamed to https://yunit.io/ 
]]></description><link>https://forums.ubports.com/topic/173/ubports-and-unity8org</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.ubports.com/topic/173/ubports-and-unity8org</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[NeoTheThird]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:52:43 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[A vision of where to go after Ubuntu Touch&#x27;s death]]></title><description><![CDATA[@Andreas-Pokorny
Thank you for providing further informations about Mir. I wasn't aware that Canonical dropped the libhybris integration. And thanks for taking care of that!
Snaps
Point by point:


It's probably easier for me to explain with an example. The LibreOffice snap in the U.Store uses the "Home" interface, which was meant to be transitional. Now that Canonical has no plan for Ubuntu Personal, could we expect similar interfaces to be "standard"? Could they break (in terms of UX and security) the current UT/UP security model, which relies on ContentHub for content sharing?


Huh, when I used "content" I was referring to files, document, or more generically data. I wasn't aware of such interface.


Yeah, that was my fear. The only example I found for adding new interfaces is this one. My impression is that Snaps have been designed with a strong centralization, afaiu.


]]></description><link>https://forums.ubports.com/topic/170/a-vision-of-where-to-go-after-ubuntu-touch-s-death</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forums.ubports.com/topic/170/a-vision-of-where-to-go-after-ubuntu-touch-s-death</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[sverzegnassi]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2017 07:28:18 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>