[aur-general] Compiz package naming

[Charles Bos]

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.
>>
>
>