On Friday, March 15, 2013 16:37:54 Martin Gr=E4=DFlin wrote:
> On Friday 15 March 2013 16:15:58 Sebastian K=FCgler wrote:
> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 14:38:45 Martin Gr=E4=DFlin wrote:
> > > this is a small request for comments where I would like to get some
> > > comments  for. That is I don't want to go ahead without consensus.
> > >
> > > =

> > >
> > > Since [1] KWin has the internal KDecorationBridge as a public part of
> > > the
> > > KDecoration API to allow Compiz to implement it. This is rather
> > > unfortunate
> > > as  it makes our life more difficult as we cannot extend our internal
> > > API
> > > without doing subclassing and all that effort (see for example [2]).
> > >
> > > =

> > >
> > > Given that it seems like nobody is still using Compiz instead of KWin=
 I
> > > do
> > > not  see why we should continue to support it. Therefore I want to
> > > request
> > > to make KDecorationBridge private again by unexporting the header fil=
e.
> > > If
> > > we agree on that I'm going to inform kde-packagers about it, so that
> > > they
> > > can conflict the 4.10 package with compiz-kde.
> > >
> > > =

> > >
> > > To back my claim I checked various distributions:
> > > * Ubuntu is not shipping kde-window-decorator in compiz-kde since
> > > precise
> > > and  doesn't ship compiz-kde since quantal [3]
> > > * Arch is shipping an outdated version in the community repo [4]
> > > * openSUSE is shipping an outdated version [5]
> > > * Gentoo is shipping an outdated version which is patched for 4.10 [6]
> > > * Fedora is shipping an outdated Compiz version, but seems to not ship
> > > compiz- kde [7]
> > > * Mageia is shipping an up to date version of Compiz (!), whether it
> > > includes  compiz-kde I couldn't figure out [8]
> > >
> > > =

> > >
> > > In all cases where I wrote outdated version it is the 0.8 branch of
> > > compiz,
> > > while Canonical is at 0.9.
> > >
> > > =

> > >
> > > If Compiz still wants to support our decorations (which I doubt, thou=
gh
> > > support for appmenu got added end of last year) they would only need =
to
> > > fork  the header file and ensure by themselves that it works correctl=
y.
> >
> > =

> >
> > Maybe interesting to know: Did you get any bugreports regarding use of
> > compiz in Plasma Desktop lately?
> =

> No, which is a strong sign that it is no longer used given bug 143419.
> =

> > And: Compiz is dead upstream, isn't it?
> =

> For certain definitions of dead: yeah. Compiz has turned into an in-house =

> product of Canoncial for Unity. That's to my knowledge the reason why mos=
t =

> distros are still on 0.8 if they include it at all. This branch is quite
> dead.  The Compiz 0.9 branch seems to be actively maintained given the
> history on launchpad [1]. But as outlined in the summary above only Mageia
> is shipping this branch apart from Ubuntu.

Thanks for the explanation. No objections from my side. :)
-- =

sebas

http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
_______________________________________________
Plasma-devel mailing list
Plasma-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel