[aur-general] Compiz package naming

[Charles Bos]

"I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series is not a fork."

Sorry, that should say: I wouldn't regard the 0.9.x series as a fork.


On 25 July 2014 10:51, Charles Bos <charlesbos1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 is completely wrong and out of date, like 5 years out of date, and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
>>
>
>