On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:15:59PM +1000, oneofthem wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:43:00PM -0700, Michael Forney wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:17:42 -0400, Carlos Torres <vlaadbr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > I didn't know about this > > > > > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQyMTQ > > > > > > I'm both excited or looking to troll > > > > I'm the author of the port. I'm not sure how the suckless community > > feels about Wayland, but it seems like the core protocol is fairly > > lightweight, depends only on libffi, and is refreshing to work with > > compared to X. Weston's goals are perhaps more orthogonal to suckless, > > but I think there is potential for a suckless compositor. > > I'd rather use dwm + wayland than dwm + xorg. >
I am very interested in st (as well as other suckless projects) on weston/wayland as well. The wayland protocol seems to be very concise and it certainly does not come with all of the legacy baggage of X. That said, I noticed that the wayland port of the st code is around 70 lines longer than the X version[1]. I have not investigated way that is though. As far as I know dwm would have to be ported as a wayland-compositor (which does not do any composing). Does anyone know of a dwm-port/suckless-compositor for the wayland protocol that is still being actively developed? [1] https://github.com/michaelforney/st/blob/wayland/st.c (wayland vs. master branch)
pgp0TmiJTH5ts.pgp
Description: PGP signature
