[aur-general] Compiz package naming

Colin Robinson beardedlinuxgeek at gmail.com
Thu Jul 31 14:20:09 EDT 2014

We had this conversation 4 months ago where I said we should name 
compiz-core-devel -> compiz and compiz-core-bzr -> compiz-bzr but 
alucryd insisted on the naming scheme that currently exists.


In regards to compiz-core-devel:

Comment by beardedlinuxgeek 2014-04-02 06:55
"If you want to rename the package, it should just be compiz. The latest 
release is 9.10; this package is for the latest release"

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. Now you may want to have a look at our official 
repositories and see that unstable releases have a -devel suffix.
Now, I realize compiz-devel would be a better name since all its parts 
have been merged, but I think it's nice to have all main compiz packages 
share the same name with different suffixes (compiz-core, 
compiz-core-devel, compiz-core-bzr)."


In regards to compiz-core-bzr:

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."

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 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- 
>>>>> 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.

More information about the aur-general mailing list