>> Hello AUR general & Compiz package maintainers. >> >> There was some discussion about Compiz packages a little while ago, i >> don't think that much came of it. I'd like to re-open the discussion. >> >> My opinions/suggestions: >> >> Calling the 0.8 series "compiz" and the 0.9 series "compiz-devel" is >> no longer correct, it hasn't been for quite some time. >> >> All information on this page: >> http://www.compiz.org/ >> is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and >> should not be used as a reference for anything. >> Tracking of the state of Compiz should be done from here: >> https://launchpad.net/compiz >> >> Development of the 0.8 series is as close to being dead as it could >> be. Unless you count 2 tiny commits 5 months ago, nothing has been >> done in 16 months, and even that 16 month old commit was a minor >> change just to get it working with KDE 4.10, with the commit prior to >> that being an additional 5 months back. >> http://cgit.compiz.org/compiz/core/log/?h=compiz-0.8 >> >> My suggestion is pretty simple, "compiz" becomes the 0.9 series, the >> 0.8 series becomes "compiz-legacy". >> Any 0.9 series packages that have "core" in their name should have it >> removed, since the concept of Compiz being split up has been dropped >> since the 0.9 series. The 0.9 series doesn't have a "core" component, >> it's just "compiz". >> >> Some examples: >> >> martadinata666's "compiz-core" package would become "compiz-legacy-core" >> >> dev_rs0's "compiz-core-devel" package would become simply "compiz" >> >> Chazza's "compiz-core-bzr" package would become "compiz-bzr" >> >> flexiondotorg's "compiz-core-mate" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-core-mate" >> >> My "compiz-gtk-standalone" package would become >> "compiz-legacy-gtk-standalone" >> >> All the "compiz-fusion-plugins-*" packages would become >> "compiz-legacy-fusion-plugins-*" >> >> ...and so on. >> >> What are everyone's thoughts? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Rob McCathie > >If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect >that?
I think it's fairly obvious that no one is actually maintaining that site. >The lead developer seems to consider the project dead, and the >site reflects that view. Canonical is doing temporary maintenance of >their fork until they move to Mir. I wouldn't call the 0.9 series "Canonical's fork". Canonical hired lead Compiz developer, Sam Spilsbury, to continue work on Compiz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz#Compiz_0.9_series I don't see how the current launchpad hosted Compiz could be considered anything other than the true successor. Also, to ensure another common misconception doesn't crop up - The Compiz 0.9 gets further patched beyond what is on launchpad.net/compiz by Canonical for Unity. The code you get if you source directly from launchpad.net/compiz is not Unity or Ubuntu specific. I can say this with much confidence, since i've been using it for months now combined with Xfce (as a xfwm4 replacement) on Arch and Manjaro systems. -- Regards, Rob McCathie
