On 5 August 2014 14:11, Charles Bos <charlesbos1@gmail.com> 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 <korrode@gmail.com> 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
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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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'
>>>>>>> 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
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Charles Bos <charlesbos1@gmail.com> wrote: the plugins + things package 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