Guess i'll stop bottom posting when everyone else is top posting :P
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Colin Robinson <beardedlinuxg...@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 <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. >>>>> >>>> >
