[Compcomm] Releases and packaging. And stuff.

[Guillaume Seguin]

2007/5/10, Jeffrey Laramie <imnotpc at rock3d.org>:
> On Monday 23 April 2007 19:11, Nicholas Thomas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been asked to re-open the discussion on packaging, and (jokes aside)
> > we aren't all /that/ far from being able to spit out a 0.1 (or whatever
> > we're going to release as), I guess. So... to reiterate what's more-or-less
> > agreed-upon so far (flame me if I get anything wrong here ;) )...
> >
> >  * CompComm releases source tarballs, and we have official repos and
> > packagers who turn them into user-friendly goodness
> >
> > * The packaging should be distro-quality, and we should be aiming to get
> > said packages into the official distros ASAP.
> >
> > * Release tarballs - currently, we have the source laid out as suggested by
> > Jeff, see: http://gitweb.opencompositing.org/
> >
> > We'll have the following source tarballs:-
> >
> > emerald, emerald-themes
> > libbs
> > compiz-plugins-good: everything verified working with no major bugs, and,
> > has an active maintainer.
> > compiz-plugins-bad: everything in the "it compiles, ship it" category;
> > mostly unmaintained (except for fixing compilation, updating for API
> > changes, etc) compiz-plugins-ugly: everything being actively worked on that
> > isn't yet stable enough for -good
> > bcop
> > $settings-manager-that-works-with-libbs
> >
> > compiz-core (depending on the first "what we need to think about" point ;)
> > )
> >
> > These will be binary packaged as: emerald, emerald-themes, libbs,
> > libbs-<backend>, $settings-manager-that-works-with-libbs,
> > compiz-plugin-good-*, compiz-plugin-bad-*, compiz-plugin-ugly-* (each
> > plugin in it's own package), bcop, $s-m-t-w-w-libbs, compiz-core, some
> > others (see below)
>
> I talked to David briefly about packaging and he's on board with your good,
> bad, and ugly naming scheme. He indicated that he would like that he would
> like to see "the requirement for -good package to be a lot more than bug-free
> and that plugins should at least work properly to be included in the -ugly
> package". He also likes the idea of the plugins each having their own repo
> (the way we laid it out in opencompositing.org) and that the division between
> plugin groups would only apply when packaging them. I would suggest that any
> devs who wish to discuss this in more detail bring it up on the compiz ML.

We (onestone and I at least) think that what we could do is have one
repo per plugin and that these repos would be automatically merged in
the plugins-good/bad/ugly global repos which would use an appropriate
autotools system. We wrote a git hook for that while I was at UDS, and
we are testing it at the moment.

>
> David also indicated that he is happy working with all the devs and thinks
> that we are working together well on code issues. Despite the ugly forum
> discussion, I think we are making a lot of progress in the areas that really
> count.
>

Great :)

> Jeff

Regards,
Guillaume