Ok folks. As there have been no comments over the weekend I've uploaded compiz and compiz-bzr:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/compiz-bzr/ I've filed requests that compiz-core-devel be merged with compiz and compiz-core-bzr be merged with compiz-bzr. Regards On 1 August 2014 15:04, Charles Bos <charlesb...@gmail.com> wrote: > @/dev/rs0 Understood. I'll happily take over maintenance. It makes sense > to have the two packages standardised. > > @all If alucryd or anyone else doesn't raise any objections by Monday then > I'll upload compiz and compiz-bzr and request compiz-core-devel and > compiz-core-bzr be merged into them. > > Is that acceptable for everybody? > > Regards > > > On 31 July 2014 20:49, Colin Robinson <beardedlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out why the packages are >> named the way they are. Please change them unless alucryd wants to weigh in >> on the discussion. >> >> >> On 07/31/2014 08:36 PM, Rob McCathie wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >