[aur-general] Compiz package naming

Tue Aug 5 08:11:26 EDT 2014

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 at 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
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Charles Bos <charlesbos1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The merger has taken place for both packages.
> >
> >
> > On 4 August 2014 14:31, Charles Bos <charlesbos1 at 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 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
>