Very little activity for such a popular fork. If you can demonstrate to me that they're actually backporting security fixes (And I see zero evidence of it) - then I'd consider it.

If i understand it correctly they scripted the cleaning and rebuild the package of every release of chromium, here is their documentation on how they do it:
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/DESIGN.md

@ikey A list of features which this browser provides can be found under https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium#features. An example is the blocking of Google-URLs such as the app store:

This has pros and cons. On one hand it protects privacy, but on the other it denies access to the app store for extensions and themes (they can only be installed manually extension-folders). Google, Gmail and other Google-services are still accessable.

+1 for this. Looks like it's been synced with upstream now - https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/releases

Does that mean it's not going to get approved now? :-(

Thanks @DataDrake, i got a bit ahead of myself when I saw it marked as wishlist but didn't check if it was moved to 'Accepted to Inclusion'.

@sixtyfive the principle problem of the project it that it takes them too long to catch up with the current stable chrome/chromium release, especially as security issues are fixed. If they rebased their patches on chromium beta a couple of weeks before every new stable chrome release so they are, at worse, a week behind rather than a ~month or more in updating to the current stable chrome release.

So if they'd be included in a distro that might send some contributors to them and then they might be able to make that change, it's a possibility, right? And in the meantime, couldn't the package description contain a warning about what you just explained? So then anyone who wants to install it, they can decide for themselves what's more important to them, privacy or security.