[Compcomm] So what's going on code-wise? Or what we're working on.

[Robert Carr]

CompComm is more than just plugins. Otherwise I would agree.

On 4/28/07, Vasek Potocek <vasek.potocek at post.cz> wrote:
> Robert Carr napsal:
> > David seems to feel the same way about the name. He hopes (as do most
> > of us), that people will want to create several distributions around
> > Compiz, use the core for their own window manager, etc. So one reason
> > for a new name is to differentiate the distribution, including things
> > like desktop managers, and software packages.
> >
> > Another point is that the distribution compromises a LOT more than
> > just Compiz. A month or so ago Compiz trunk was 54k lines of code,
> > Beryl trunk (not counting beryl-mesa or beryl-settings-bindings
> > autogenerated code) was close to 200k. Granted, a lot of it was
> > plugins, but, this becomes an even more important distinction as the
> > plan is to move a lot of plugins out of f-d.o Compiz.
> >
> > So. We could just distribute a package of software (not just a tarball
> > of source) under the name "Compiz-extras", but eventually this would
> > probably grow even bigger than Beryl, and Compiz would become smaller,
> > so when you have a 200k LOC distribution with artwork, etc, around a
> > 20-40k LOC core+some plugins the infrastructure, becomes so large that
> > it makes sense to organize this "package of software" as it's own
> > project, and at this point it makes sense to have a name to separate
> > it from Compiz, both for the users (to separate it from any other
> > package of plugins/software distributed around Compiz), and to prevent
> > it from being viewed as a 'part' of Compiz.
>
> Hello everybody ;-)
>
> I didn't think this will happen, but I can't help taking part in the "name flame" as well... I hope it is not "so flame"
> these days :-)
>
> I don't see much difference against this example:
>
> xscreensaver-base: ~30k LOC, Jamie Zawinski's core doing the real screensaver work, but no effects,
>
> xscreensaver-extras: ~110k LOC
> xscreensaver-gl-extras: ~120k LOC, both mostly user-contributed screensaver modules.
>
> The latter two packages are definitely not part of the main program, they contain only the "hacks" it calls. There are
> other, stand-alone screensavers that can be installed. Still I (and apparently nobody, this has been working well for
> years) can't see any reason to call the -extras another name and considering them really independent. Most probably
> there will never be any other compilation like them and 99% users install these three (or base + one of the -extras)
> together.
>
> [Yes, these extras are kind of monothematic, but what else than screensaver modules would anybody expect as extensions
> to a screensaver?]
>
> Do you really think the case of compiz will be too different?
>
> > Similar to how a user can install X.org and then choose to install KDE
> > on top of it, we want a user to be able to install compiz-core and
> > then install CompComm on top of it and have everything he needs to
> > have a great accelerated desktop. Our goals and code will be distinct
> > from Compiz, so to me it almost seems rude to distribute it under that
> > name.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
>