[aur-general] Compiz package naming

[Charles Bos]

This change sounds sensible to me. I would be more than happy to turn
compiz-core-bzr back into compiz-bzr.

Regarding compiz.org, that has been dead for a long time and I wouldn't
consider it an authority on Compiz information. For instance: on the front
page of wiki.compiz.org it states that 0.8.8 is the latest 0.8 release and
0.9.8 is the latest 0.9 release when it is actually 0.8.9 and 0.9.11
respectively.

I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork. It's a development branch
which should theoretically be released as Compiz 0.10 or Compiz 1.0 in the
same way that GNOME 3.13 is a development branch that will be released as
3.14 in the future.

Regarding the renaming of the 0.8 packages. Perhaps they could be called
compiz0.8 instead of compiz-legacy. This sometimes happens in the official
repos. For instance: there's wxgtk (which is at version 3) and wxgtk2.8.
Just a thought.

Regards


On 25 July 2014 10:23, Rob McCathie <korrode at gmail.com> 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 is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and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
> >
> >If that's true, why haven't the developers updated the site to reflect
> >that?
>
> 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz#Compiz_0.9_series
> 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.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Rob McCathie
>