[aur-general] Compiz package naming

Thu Jul 31 15:36:14 EDT 2014

Guess i'll stop bottom posting when everyone else is top posting :P

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Colin Robinson
<beardedlinuxgeek at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

This is simply incorrect, as i've explained earlier.

> 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."

Meh. Upstream doesn't recognise the concept of "compiz-core" since the
0.9 series. Do we comply with upstream or do we comply with other
distros? Methinks upstream.

Sidenote:
>>>>> http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/arch/packages/compiz-0.9.11.2-1.src.tar.gz

After some things were noticed and some discussion had in the
compiz-core-bzr comments, this package has been updated and anyone
reviewing it should re-download it.

--
Regards,
Rob McCathie

>
> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>