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 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All information on this page: http://www.compiz.org/ is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and should not be used as a reference for anything.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

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie wrote:

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos 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 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.g...

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.

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 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 wrote:

...

...

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos 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 wrote:

...

Hello Everyone,

I think it definitely makes sense to drop the 'core' name and take on

...

...

...

'legacy' scheme as described.

Additionally, seeing as 'compiz-core-bzr' is more actively

...

...

...

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

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: the maintained, and 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.g...

...

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.

We had this conversation 4 months ago where I said we should name compiz-core-devel -> compiz and compiz-core-bzr -> compiz-bzr but alucryd insisted on the naming scheme that currently exists. --- In regards to compiz-core-devel: Comment by beardedlinuxgeek 2014-04-02 06:55 "If you want to rename the package, it should just be compiz. The latest release is 9.10; this package is for the latest release" 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. Now you may want to have a look at our official repositories and see that unstable releases have a -devel suffix. Now, I realize compiz-devel would be a better name since all its parts have been merged, but I think it's nice to have all main compiz packages share the same name with different suffixes (compiz-core, compiz-core-devel, compiz-core-bzr)." --- In regards to compiz-core-bzr: 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." 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 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 wrote:

...

...

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos 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 wrote:

> Hello Everyone, > > I think it definitely makes sense to drop the 'core' name and > take on

...

...

> 'legacy' scheme as described. > > Additionally, seeing as 'compiz-core-bzr' is more actively

...

...

> 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

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: the maintained, and 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.g...

...

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.

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 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.g... 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 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 wrote:

...

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos 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 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.g... > 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.

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 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 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 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 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 wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie >> 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 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. >> >>

...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 wrote:

The merger has taken place for both packages.

On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos 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 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 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 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 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 wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie >>>> 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 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. >>>> >>>>

On 5 August 2014 14:11, Charles Bos 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 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 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 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 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 > 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 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 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 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 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

Since I only ignored the original thread sent to AUR general and no other thread, I only reply to AUR. I agree with Florian. For those who guess somebody misquotes, there still are the mailing list archives, so don't worry that "I don't like Bananas in Pyjamas." by bad quoting becomes "I [snip] like Pyjamas." Sometimes people guess that the summarized quotes don't reflect the original opinion. Indeed, this seldom happens, but there are still the archives for clarification, IOW there's no need to quote trillions of lines and/or (multiple) copies of signatures.

+1 I also wanted to contribute to this thread. To quote the whole internet: I wouldn't fit into this email. Cheers! mar77i