Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: portmaster@BSDforge.com Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Vote: making wayland=on default Message-ID: <8EDCE5A5-391E-4529-9713-79901739CC6F@grem.de> In-Reply-To: <9142f3e2938c84bd838b3764197226be@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <9142f3e2938c84bd838b3764197226be@udns.ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H <portmaster@BSDforge.com> wrote: >=20 > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +0000 <freebsd-ports-owner@freebsd.org> said >=20 > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" <johalun0@gmail.com= > > said >=20 >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H <portmaster@bsdforge.com> wrote:= >> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" >> <johalun0@gmail.com> >> > said >> > >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I want to suggest that we enable wayland by default. 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. >> >> >> >> libwayland-egl.so 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. (might be something more that I missed) >> >> >> >> Personally I see no reason not to make it default on, even with >> >> flavors coming up. For any Desktop user (as well as embedded devices >> >> like IVI-systems and whatnot), Wayland is the future. There's no >> >> escaping that. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> If we are to compare with the other guys, several Linux distros are >> >> already switching to wayland-based compositors as default window >> >> server. >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> > >> > IMHO it's (still) too early. Too much other X(org) related work >> > still being completed. 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. I was only required to >> > inform /usr/local/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/nvidia-driver.conf that >> > the driver was "nvidia", not "nv". Everything work(s|ed) famously. >> > A real treat. I'm also a bit concerned about the progress (or lack >> > there of) on network transparency. >> > I (personally) could conceive it as a KERNEL OPTION, but would not >> > want to see it in the Default kernel. >> > >> > Well, those are *my* thoughts. Because you asked. :-) >> > >> > --Chris >> > >> Thanks for your feedback! >> Just to clarify, we're not talking about changing any defaults that >> would impact or change users' choice of desktop. We only want to >> enable Wayland compositors as an alternative to X (leaving X as is). >> This does not break or modify anything existing. It does not force you >> to do anything differently. 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). >> The reference to Linux making it default might have been unclear. >> Since FreeBSD doesn't have a default desktop, it's hard to change. 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. > So no kernel (libs/extensions)? > Hmm, gtk3. Why is it not possible to make the Wayland stuff a sub > package/option? I think this is the preferred track/policy anyway. > I do this for all the ports I currently maintain. 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,... > is that correct? While I understand, you indicate it's only a few Kb. > I think it's cruft/(unnecessary)overhead. Which, in and of itself > seems insignificant. But in the "big picture", and over many (100's) > of builds/installations, is *not* insignificant. This also dismisses > the security related work, maintaining extra un(used|needed) material. > I suppose some will think that I'm just being nit-picky. But IMHO > I'm not. This sort of thing, if overlooked, *does* affect the bottom > line. >=20 > Thanks again, Johannes! >=20 > P.S. I have nothing against Wayland. I'm just not ready to run it > on anything "production" related, just yet. :-) >=20 > --Chris >=20 The key is to have it in a state that easy to maintain and allows people to i= nstall it using pkg install without conflicting with X, so you can switch ba= ck and forth easily. I'm also not ready to switch to wayland yet (favorite w= indow manager not available, so many custom configurations I came up with ov= er the years etc.), but giving users an easy way to test it (or use it, as i= t's becoming more and more mainstream now) is a good thing.=20 Having a modern, working, out of the box desktop (read: no custom kernel bui= lds, no need to use ports, a laptop is the point of first contact for many p= otential users) is incredibly important for proliferation and compared to th= e total size of binaries required to run X, I think the usefulness of provid= ing wayland easily outweighs the extra overhead. Yours, Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> /Johannes >> > >> > >>>=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8EDCE5A5-391E-4529-9713-79901739CC6F>