@/dev/rs0 Understood. I'll happily take over maintenance. It makes sense to have the two packages standardised.
@all If alucryd or anyone else doesn't raise any objections by Monday then I'll upload compiz and compiz-bzr and request compiz-core-devel and compiz-core-bzr be merged into them. Is that acceptable for everybody? Regards On 31 July 2014 20:49, Colin Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out why the packages are > named the way they are. Please change them unless alucryd wants to weigh in > on the discussion. > > > On 07/31/2014 08:36 PM, Rob McCathie wrote: > >> Guess i'll stop bottom posting when everyone else is top posting :P >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Colin Robinson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Comment by alucryd 2014-04-02 07:25 >>> "beardedlinuxgeek: Wrong, the latest stable branch is 0.8.x, the 0.9.x >>> branch is unstable. >>> >> This is simply incorrect, as i've explained earlier. >> >> >> Comment by alucryd 2014-04-01 08:1 >>> "Merged a few bzr packages into this one. Could you upload it as >>> 'compiz-core-bzr', all other distros use the 'compiz-core' name. I'll do >>> the >>> merge afterwards." >>> >> Meh. Upstream doesn't recognise the concept of "compiz-core" since the >> 0.9 series. Do we comply with upstream or do we comply with other >> distros? Methinks upstream. >> >> >> Sidenote: >> >>> http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0. >>>>>>> 9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz >>>>>>> >>>>>> After some things were noticed and some discussion had in the >> compiz-core-bzr comments, this package has been updated and anyone >> reviewing it should re-download it. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Rob McCathie >> >> >> Comment by beardedlinuxgeek 2014-04-02 07:39 >>> "This package isn't compiz-core. It's compiz-core + all the plugins + >>> ccsm + >>> the gtk decorator + the kde decorator. Take a look at the components >>> (http://releases.compiz.org/components/), compiz-core is just one of 17 >>> packages. This package, on the other hand, is all of them" >>> >>> --- >>> >>> So obviously I support korrode's new naming scheme of changing things >>> back >>> to how they were originally named. It doesn't matter to me if you rename >>> compiz-core to compiz-legacy-core or compiz0.8-core, but the word "core" >>> needs to be dropped from all the 0.9x packages. >>> >>> >>> On 07/31/2014 06:40 PM, /dev/rs0 wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Charles, >>>> >>>> I think it makes more sense for you to take over my package. >>>> >>>> As I mentioned, it's basically a derivative of the bzr package. I do >>>> enjoy >>>> maintaining packages but I figured, as the bzr package receives >>>> development, >>>> it would be simple enough for you to apply any changes to both packages >>>> instead of always going through me. >>>> >>>> On 07/31/2014 06:58 AM, Charles Bos wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> So I'm just wondering if the change should go ahead now as the idea has >>>>> been floating around for nearly a week and nobody has raised >>>>> objections. >>>>> Regarding the 0.9 bzr package, that would involve me uploading >>>>> compiz-bzr >>>>> and then requesting compiz-core-bzr be merged. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding the stable package, someone should upload the package korrode >>>>> made and ask for compiz-core-devel to be merged into it. >>>>> >>>>> /dev/sr0, what are your feelings on continuing to maintain your >>>>> package? >>>>> If >>>>> you want to continue maintenance then you should be the one to upload >>>>> the >>>>> korrode's package and ask for the merger. If you're sure you would >>>>> prefer >>>>> me to take over as you suggested earlier then please let me know and >>>>> then >>>>> we know where we stand. >>>>> >>>>> On the subject of the stable package, a tarball for 0.9.11.2 has been >>>>> released on launchpad.net >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27 July 2014 14:11, Charles Bos <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's great korrode. Thanks. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Is everyone agreed vis-a-vis the new name scheme? I only ask because a >>>>>> TU >>>>>> seemed to have other ideas regarding Compiz package naming >>>>>> consistency - >>>>>> I >>>>>> for instance was asked to rename compiz-bzr to compiz-core-bzr. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 July 2014 16:39, Rob McCathie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos <[email protected] >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi /dev/rs0, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chazza here. If you don't want to continue maintaining >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> compiz-core-devel >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd be fine with taking over. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25 July 2014 17:17, /dev/rs0 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it definitely makes sense to drop the 'core' name and take >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'legacy' scheme as described. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Additionally, seeing as 'compiz-core-bzr' is more actively >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> maintained, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that 'compiz-core-devel' is basically a derivative now; I've been >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> curious >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if Chazza would like to adopt the package. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I occasionally receive patches from him and notice much more >>>>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>>>> involvement on the Wiki/AUR/Forums in regard to >>>>>>>>>> 'compiz-core-bzr'. I >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to be an unnecessary middleman for such an infrequently updated >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> package. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /dev/rs0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/25/2014 03:43 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Charles, i started setting up my new package for Manjaro and since >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> included converting the package back to using release archives and >>>>>>>> doing 90% of the work to make a suitable generic 'compiz' package >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> AUR, i figured i'd post it to you, maybe save you a few mins: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0. >>>>>>> 9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I retained your style and patchset, the only thing i did change was >>>>>>>> setting cpp as a default plugin at compile time, rather than >>>>>>>> modifying >>>>>>>> the .desktop file... because who isn't going to use ccp? ;) >>>>>>>> Plus minimal users who start compiz from their xinitrc get no use >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the .desktop file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The package is named simply "compiz". If we're going to go with the >>>>>>>> naming convention as discussed, Charles can simply upload this >>>>>>>> package >>>>>>>> (or whatever), /dev/sr0 you could just flag your package for >>>>>>>> deletion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Rob McCathie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry not deletion, get it merged after Chazza uploads. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
