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=3D232767 --- 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 t= ree. 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 sw= ay > into ports and remove this one.=20 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 numbe= r 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. --=20 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>