Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:19:43 +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: <48EBD5AF-1FF6-442D-9365-0A93CD63E88A@grem.de> In-Reply-To: <d7c8d785fcbdca09ced0166367dc0d60@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <d7c8d785fcbdca09ced0166367dc0d60@udns.ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 21. Dec 2017, at 02:14, Chris H <portmaster@BSDforge.com> wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" <freebsd@grem.de> said= >=20 >> > On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H <portmaster@BSDforge.com> wrote: >> > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +0000 <freebsd-ports-owner@freebsd.org> s= aid >> > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" <johalun0@gmai= l.com> >> > said >> > >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H <portmaster@bsdforge.com> w= rote: >> >> > 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 sta= te >> >> >> 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 header= s >> >> >> 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 device= s >> >> >> 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. >> > > Thanks again, Johannes! >> > > P.S. I have nothing against Wayland. I'm just not ready to run it >> > on anything "production" related, just yet. :-) >> > > --Chris >> > The key is to have it in a state that easy to maintain and allows peopl= e to >> install it using pkg install without conflicting with X, so you can switc= h >> back and forth easily. I'm also not ready to switch to wayland yet (favor= ite >> window manager not available, so many custom configurations I came up wit= h >> over the years etc.), but giving users an easy way to test it (or use it,= as >> it's becoming more and more mainstream now) is a good thing. Having a mod= ern, working, out of the box desktop (read: no custom kernel >> builds, no need to use ports, a laptop is the point of first contact for m= any >> potential users) is incredibly important for proliferation and compared t= o >> the total size of binaries required to run X, I think the usefulness of >> providing wayland easily outweighs the extra overhead. > I wouldn't argue, nor did I argue those points. Who would? But muddying up= > the individual ports (gtk3 for example) doesn't make anything lighter, or > better. Quite the contrary. IMHO Wayland should probably be added. Who > doesn't like more options? But, if it's coming to FreeBSD, and the ports > tree. It should isolate itself as it's own port(s), and include those > dependencies it requires. This is supposed to be policy. IOW if I decide > to include gtk3 as an option to one of the ports I'm installing as a run/ > build depends, I don't want it installing Wayland, mesa, and a bunch of > other things I don't need -- no matter how small they might be. It's supposed to be insignificant in size, a small price compared to maintai= ning multiple versions of these ports. Just for comparison, on my system, gt= k3 from pkg.freebsd.org requires about 450MiB including dependencies. > Doesn't that just make sense for *any* port? That's really my only possibl= e > gripe. :-) >=20 I understand the ambition to keep things lean and in general I agree with th= is approach of only installing what you need, but having multiple versions/f= lavors of certain libraries doesn't seem viable (multiple flavors? Multiple v= ersions of the same package? Building applications twice?). That's why I'm i= n favor of it. Anyway, I think the positions are clear and that's all Johannes asked about.= Yours, Michael > --Chris >> Yours, >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> /Johannes >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> > > >=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?48EBD5AF-1FF6-442D-9365-0A93CD63E88A>