The merger has taken place for both packages.
On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok folks. As there have been no comments over the weekend I've uploaded > compiz and compiz-bzr: > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz/ > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz-bzr/ > > I've filed requests that compiz-core-devel be merged with compiz and > compiz-core-bzr be merged with compiz-bzr. > > Regards > > > On 1 August 2014 15:04, Charles Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > >> @/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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >
