[aur-general] Compiz package naming

Rob McCathie korrode at gmail.com
Fri Jul 25 05:23:50 EDT 2014

>> 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 is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and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
>If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect

I think it's fairly obvious that no one is actually maintaining that site.

>The lead developer seems to consider the project dead, and the
>site reflects that view. Canonical is doing temporary maintenance of
>their fork until they move to Mir.

I wouldn't call the 0.9 series "Canonical's fork". Canonical hired
lead Compiz developer, Sam Spilsbury, to continue work on Compiz.
I don't see how the current launchpad hosted Compiz could be
considered anything other than the true successor.

Also, to ensure another common misconception doesn't crop up - The
Compiz 0.9 gets further patched beyond what is on launchpad.net/compiz
by Canonical for Unity. The code you get if you source directly from
launchpad.net/compiz is not Unity or Ubuntu specific. I can say this
with much confidence, since i've been using it for months now combined
with Xfce (as a xfwm4 replacement) on Arch and Manjaro systems.

Rob McCathie

More information about the aur-general mailing list