The merger has taken place for both packages. On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos <charlesbos1@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 <charlesbos1@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 <beardedlinuxgeek@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 <beardedlinuxgeek@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 <charlesbos1@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 <korrode@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie <korrode@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos < >>>> charlesbos1@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 <rs0@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 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. >>> >>>