[aur-general] Compiz package naming

Fri Aug 1 10:04:36 EDT 2014

@/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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie <korrode at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos <charlesbos1 at 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 at 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>