Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:50:44 -0800 From: "Chris H" <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Vote: making wayland=on default Message-ID: <9142f3e2938c84bd838b3764197226be@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <mailman.8273.1513790023.81098.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +0000 <freebsd-ports-owner@freebsd=2Eorg> said On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" <johalun0@gmail=2Ecom> said > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H <portmaster@bsdforge=2Ecom> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" > <johalun0@gmail=2Ecom> > > said > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I want to suggest that we enable wayland by default=2E In current state > >> having some parts of wayland in ports is basically useless the > >> end-users themselves re-build gtk30 and mesa-libs with wayland > >> enabled=2E > >> > >> libwayland-egl=2Eso from mesa-libs and the extra libraries and headers > >> from gtk30 adds like a few KB, a drop in the ocean compared to xorg > >> packages=2E (might be something more that I missed) > >> > >> Personally I see no reason not to make it default on, even with > >> flavors coming up=2E For any Desktop user (as well as embedded devices > >> like IVI-systems and whatnot), Wayland is the future=2E There's no > >> escaping that=2E > >> > >> Wayland has been quite usable on FreeBSD for over a year now but > >> access to it is limited due to the extra efforts required to use it=2E > >> > >> If we are to compare with the other guys, several Linux distros are > >> already switching to wayland-based compositors as default window > >> server=2E > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > IMHO it's (still) too early=2E Too much other X(org) related work > > still being completed=2E In fact, I just built a new dev box to > > track 12 (CURRENT), and this was the first time I was not required > > to pre generate a config file for Xorg=2E I was only required to > > inform /usr/local/etc/X11/xorg=2Econf=2Ed/nvidia-driver=2Econf that > > the driver was "nvidia", not "nv"=2E Everything work(s|ed) famously=2E > > A real treat=2E I'm also a bit concerned about the progress (or lack > > there of) on network transparency=2E > > I (personally) could conceive it as a KERNEL OPTION, but would not > > want to see it in the Default kernel=2E > > > > Well, those are *my* thoughts=2E Because you asked=2E :-) > > > > --Chris > > >=20 > Thanks for your feedback! >=20 > Just to clarify, we're not talking about changing any defaults that > would impact or change users' choice of desktop=2E We only want to > enable Wayland compositors as an alternative to X (leaving X as is)=2E >=20 > This does not break or modify anything existing=2E It does not force you > to do anything differently=2E It simply adds a couple of libraries that > you won't use unless you run Wayland stuff (if you install qt5/gtk30 > and mesa-libs)=2E >=20 > The reference to Linux making it default might have been unclear=2E > Since FreeBSD doesn't have a default desktop, it's hard to change=2E It > is and will continue to be up to the end user what they choose to use, > we only add more options :) Thanks for the informative reply, Johannes=2E So no kernel (libs/extensions)? Hmm, gtk3=2E Why is it not possible to make the Wayland stuff a sub package/option? I think this is the preferred track/policy anyway=2E I do this for all the ports I currently maintain=2E IOW any DE related stuff I install, that uses GNOME related material, will pull in gtk3, which, as I understand you say, will ultimately pull in Weston,mesa,=2E=2E=2E is that correct? While I understand, you indicate it's only a few Kb=2E I think it's cruft/(unnecessary)overhead=2E Which, in and of itself seems insignificant=2E But in the "big picture", and over many (100's) of builds/installations, is *not* insignificant=2E This also dismisses the security related work, maintaining extra un(used|needed) material=2E I suppose some will think that I'm just being nit-picky=2E But IMHO I'm not=2E This sort of thing, if overlooked, *does* affect the bottom line=2E Thanks again, Johannes! P=2ES=2E I have nothing against Wayland=2E I'm just not ready to run it on anything "production" related, just yet=2E :-) --Chris >=20 > >> > >> > >> /Johannes > > > > >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9142f3e2938c84bd838b3764197226be>