On 5 August 2014 14:11, Charles Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, I think 0.8 is better because Compiz 0.8 is still fairly widely > used so it might not be fair to call it legacy. That said, it doesn't > matter to me too much as I don't really have anything to do with Compiz > 0.8. > > Regarding maintainers, these are the people that need to be contacted and > their relevant packages: > > - hazard - ccsm > - MilanKnizek - compizcc > - FlorianD - compiz-bcop, compiz-backend-kconfig4, compizconfig-python, > simple-ccsm > - martadinata666 - compiz-core, compiz-fusion-plugins-main > compiz-fusion-plugins-extra > - flexiondotorg - compiz-core-mate, compiz-decorator-gtk > - JesusMcCloud - compiz-fusion-plugins-main-genie > - leafonsword - compiz-fusion-plugins-unsupported > - DasMoeh - libcompizconfig > > I don't if it's better to leave comments on the relevant packages or send > these folks an email telling them to join this conversation - hopefully > they're all at least subscribed to aur-general! > > I'm also wondering about emerald. We currently have a package called > emerald - maintained by martadinata666 - which is the 0.8 version. We also > have emerald0.9 and emerald-git - both maintained by me - and both of which > are 0.9 versions. Now if the Compiz 0.8 packages are getting renamed then > presumably emerald should be renamed to emerald-legacy or emerald0.8 and > possibly my emerald0.9 package should be renamed to emerald. Thoughts? > > > On 5 August 2014 01:49, Rob McCathie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ...and did we decide if we're using "-legacy" or "0.8" in the names of > > the legacy 0.8 series packages? > > > > I can make all new 0.8 packages with the changes, submit them, make > > the merge requests, then disown them (and the original maintainers can > > take them back, or whatever), if it makes things easier. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Rob McCathie > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Charles Bos <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
To throw in my opinion, I'd vote for the 'compiz-legacy' option. It may still be widely used, but the last release was ages ago. And I don't really agree with the semantic meaning of 'compiz0.8-0.8.9'. Same for emerald. On another note, if anyone has compiz packages he/she wants to get rid of, I'll gladly maintain them. Compiz may have passed the spotlight, but it is still my daily used awesome window manager (no pun intended). - Florian
