[aur-general] Compiz package naming

[Charles Bos]

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 at 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 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>