Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:14:25 -0800 From: "Chris H" <portmaster@BSDforge.com> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Vote: making wayland=on default Message-ID: <d7c8d785fcbdca09ced0166367dc0d60@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <8EDCE5A5-391E-4529-9713-79901739CC6F@grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" <freebsd@grem=2Ede> said > > On 20=2E Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H <portmaster@BSDforge=2Ecom> wrote: > >=20 > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +0000 <freebsd-ports-owner@freebsd=2Eorg> sa= id > >=20 > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" <johalun0@gmail=2E= com> > > said > >=20 > >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H <portmaster@bsdforge=2Ecom> wro= te: > >> > 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 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=2E > >> >> > >> >> libwayland-egl=2Eso 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=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 device= s > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> Thanks for your feedback! > >> 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 > >> 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 > >> 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 > >=20 > > Thanks again, Johannes! > >=20 > > P=2ES=2E I have nothing against Wayland=2E I'm just not ready to run it > > on anything "production" related, just yet=2E :-) > >=20 > > --Chris > >=20 >=20 > The key is to have it in a state that easy to maintain and allows people = to > install it using pkg install without conflicting with X, so you can switc= h > back and forth easily=2E 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=2E), 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=2E=20 >=20 > Having a modern, 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 = many > 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=2E I wouldn't argue, nor did I argue those points=2E Who would? But muddying up the individual ports (gtk3 for example) doesn't make anything lighter, or better=2E Quite the contrary=2E IMHO Wayland should probably be added=2E Who doesn't like more options? But, if it's coming to FreeBSD, and the ports tree=2E It should isolate itself as it's own port(s), and include those dependencies it requires=2E This is supposed to be policy=2E 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=2E Doesn't that just make sense for *any* port? That's really my only possible gripe=2E :-) --Chris >=20 > Yours, > Michael >=20 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> /Johannes > >> > > >> > > >>>=20 > >=20 > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d7c8d785fcbdca09ced0166367dc0d60>