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 <charlesb...@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 <korr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Rob McCathie <korr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Charles Bos <charlesb...@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 <r...@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.
