[aur-general] Compiz package naming

Tue Aug 5 10:12:58 EDT 2014

On 5 August 2014 14:11, Charles Bos <charlesbos1 at 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 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.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

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