[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 12 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 17 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (12 total) == * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (i686) * bbswitch-0.8-15 (i686) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (i686) * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (i686) * vhba-module-20140629-6 (i686) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (i686) * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (x86_64) * bbswitch-0.8-15 (x86_64) * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (x86_64) * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (x86_64) * vhba-module-20140629-6 (x86_64) * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (17 total) == * perl-extutils-config-0.008-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.8-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-15 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * dd_rescue-1.45-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-1.1.0-11 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.8-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * bbswitch-0.8-15 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dd_rescue-1.45-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r1-9 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-0.41-52 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vhba-module-20140629-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-4.3.14-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
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 charlesb...@gmail.com 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 beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com 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 beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com 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 charlesb...@gmail.com 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 korr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos charlesb...@gmail.com 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 r...@secretco.de.com 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
Re: [aur-general] no LLDP tools in [extra] or [community] :-/
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.net wrote: On 23/07/2014 23:35, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 23/07/2014 15:59, Ido Rosen wrote: There's a PKGBUILD for ladvd and lldpd in AUR currently, these are important networking tools in data center environments. Can someone please promote at least one of them to [community] or ideally [extra]? They're not high on votes, but I think this should be an exception since not many people are using Arch in data center environments anyhow that would need them and would thus vote on them. They both implement LLDP daemons. I agree. I will move them. Cheers, lldpd is now in community. Looking deeper in lldp servers/agents capabilities, I came to the conclusion that including ladvd seems unnecessary. With this in mind: http://www.kempgen.net/voip/lldp-agents.html ladvd has no release since Feb 2012 and less features than lldpd. That's fair, thank you for packaging lldpd! I noticed RedHat no longer seems to package ladvd, and has switched to lldpad. Maybe we should package lldpad (aka Open-LLDP) from http://www.open-lldp.org/ ? Thoughts? Cheers, -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] no LLDP tools in [extra] or [community] :-/
On 23/07/2014 23:35, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On 23/07/2014 15:59, Ido Rosen wrote: There's a PKGBUILD for ladvd and lldpd in AUR currently, these are important networking tools in data center environments. Can someone please promote at least one of them to [community] or ideally [extra]? They're not high on votes, but I think this should be an exception since not many people are using Arch in data center environments anyhow that would need them and would thus vote on them. They both implement LLDP daemons. I agree. I will move them. Cheers, lldpd is now in community. Looking deeper in lldp servers/agents capabilities, I came to the conclusion that including ladvd seems unnecessary. With this in mind: http://www.kempgen.net/voip/lldp-agents.html ladvd has no release since Feb 2012 and less features than lldpd. Cheers, -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
[aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Hello everybody,
following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package
virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package
(virtualbox-ext-oracle) does:
* Install an archive file.
* Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman knowing
about it.
I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package
(virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right:
* Just install the files required, ready to use for virtualbox.
* No crappy install script required!
My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if
more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments
that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with
pacman or the install script.
Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR.
But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there?
--
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */B?IJj;MEH
CX:;,b;for(a/*Chris get my mail address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* gcc -o sig sig.c ./sig*/b/42*2-3)*42);}
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Christian Hesse l...@eworm.de wrote: My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with pacman or the install script. Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? For what it's worth, I (a regular Arch Linux user) support this package, I think it's the best way to install this extension pack, and was a bit amazed that someone with a competitive package could delete this one. Kind regards, Marcel BTW, his nick is 'seblu', not 'sublu', as Christian Hesse typoed.
[aur-general] TU resignation.
Hi all, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to keeping Arch the great distribution it is. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Hi, I didn't vote for any package I'm using from AUR. Perhaps it's a mistake. Here the package of choice is virtualbox-extension-pack. $ pacman -Q virtualbox-extension-pack virtualbox-extension-pack 4.3.12-1 $ ls /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack* /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.10-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.12-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.14-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz /var/cache/aur/virtualbox-extension-pack-4.3.14-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz Currently downgraded regarding to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/41424 . The package shouldn't be deleted. Regards, Ralf -- The natural scientists Fritz Haber, Otto Hahn, James Franck and Gustav Hertz established poison gas for military usage and later they were decorated with the Nobelpreis.
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 17:41:42 +0100 Peter Lewis ple...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: Hi all, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to keeping Arch the great distribution it is. Cheers, Pete. Hi Peter, well with all this you mention here it doesn't sound too bad so have fun and I hope you enjoy it. :-) Cheers, Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014, Thorsten Töpper wrote: well with all this you mention here it doesn't sound too bad so have fun and I hope you enjoy it. :-) Thanks, Thorsten. All is indeed well :-) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
Congrats on what sounds like several bits of good news! On 2014-08-04 17:41 +0100 Peter Lewis wrote: Hi all, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to keeping Arch the great distribution it is. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
The merger has taken place for both packages. On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos charlesb...@gmail.com 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 charlesb...@gmail.com 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 beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com 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 beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com 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 charlesb...@gmail.com 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 korr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos charlesb...@gmail.com 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 r...@secretco.de.com 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
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit : Hello everybody, following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does: * Install an archive file. * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman knowing about it. I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right: * Just install the files required, ready to use for virtualbox. * No crappy install script required! My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with pacman or the install script. Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox documentation. Documentation is available at http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack * The extpack command allows you to add or remove VirtualBox extension packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension packs”. In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the proper way. Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky. Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before suppressing, rules were followed. Nothing more to say. -- Laurent Carlier http://www.archlinux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] virtualbox-extension-pack vs. virtualbox-ext-oracle
Even if the script is the recommended way, shouldn't the package be designed so that it will track all of its files? Having a post install script that places files through your filesystem feels like a dirty hack at the best of times. Regards, Justin Dray E: jus...@dray.be M: 0433348284 On 05/08/2014 7:13 am, Laurent Carlier lordhea...@gmail.com wrote: Le lundi 4 août 2014, 18:15:32 Christian Hesse a écrit : Hello everybody, following a lengthy discussion sublu just deleted my package virtualbox-extension-pack from AUR. This is what his package (virtualbox-ext-oracle) does: * Install an archive file. * Use install script to copy a number of files to /usr without pacman knowing about it. I think this is the wrong way, so I created my own package (virtualbox-extension-pack) that tries to get it right: * Just install the files required, ready to use for virtualbox. * No crappy install script required! My package had about 75 votes IIRC, probably there would have been more if more people knew about the details. The discussing had a number of comments that agreed about my opinion regarding installing/coping files to /usr with pacman or the install script. Although I think it is wrong seblu is free to provide his package via AUR. But is there any good reason mine is not allowed to reside there? I've checked both packages, then i've also checked virtualbox documentation. Documentation is available at http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ * Ch8.36. VBoxManage extpack * The extpack command allows you to add or remove VirtualBox extension packs, as described in Section 1.5, “Installing VirtualBox and extension packs”. In regards of VirtualBox docs, Seblu is installing extension pack the proper way. Your package isn't following upstream way to install extension package and you are not sure it will keep working, you are just lucky. Your package is only a duplicated package of seblu's one, only differing on the way to install extension pack files isn't a good reason enough. Seblu was right to remove your package, there was an explanation before suppressing, rules were followed. Nothing more to say. -- Laurent Carlier http://www.archlinux.org
Re: [aur-general] Compiz package naming
...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 charlesb...@gmail.com wrote: The merger has taken place for both packages. On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos charlesb...@gmail.com 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 charlesb...@gmail.com 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 beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com 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 beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com 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 charlesb...@gmail.com 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 korr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos charlesb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi
