Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:30:50 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 232767] x11-toolkits/wlc: remove port Message-ID: <bug-232767-7141-z0PwOqDWed@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-232767-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-232767-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232767 --- Comment #4 from Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Johannes Lundberg from comment #3) > A Sway port was done but never committed so there are users outside the tree. Do you mean review D13431? It depends on bug 224202 which you've abandoned. If there's no plan to land it then the port has no users in the current shape. External repositories like the one Greg V maintains can revert removal or update Sway port to a version that depends on wlroots. > When we get to doing all the Wayland stuff, let's also get wlroots and sway > into ports and remove this one. Bug 227509 tries to avoid bitrot. Either stuff is maintained or purged from the tree. Wayland compositors are outside of scope there and may lead to inflow of Wayland-related bug reports which x11@ cannot handle yet. OTOH, an option enabled by default can still be disabled by users that care about the number of dependencies. > All Wayland related ports are still early alpha stage so don't rush into any > conclusions. Why not work in parallel? For one, I want the headache of support of non-default options gone from my ports. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-232767-7141-z0PwOqDWed>