On 21/12/2017 03:19, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On 21. Dec 2017, at 02:14, Chris H <portmas...@bsdforge.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" <free...@grem.de> said
On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H <portmas...@bsdforge.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +0000 <freebsd-ports-ow...@freebsd.org> said
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" <johal...@gmail.com>
said
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H <portmas...@bsdforge.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg"
<johal...@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.
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 people to
install it using pkg install without conflicting with X, so you can switch
back and forth easily. I'm also not ready to switch to wayland yet (favorite
window manager not available, so many custom configurations I came up with
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 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 to
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
maintaining multiple versions of these ports. Just for comparison, on my
system, gtk3 from pkg.freebsd.org requires about 450MiB including dependencies.
Doesn't that just make sense for *any* port? That's really my only possible
gripe. :-)
I understand the ambition to keep things lean and in general I agree with this
approach of only installing what you need, but having multiple versions/flavors
of certain libraries doesn't seem viable (multiple flavors? Multiple versions
of the same package? Building applications twice?). That's why I'm in favor of
it.
Anyway, I think the positions are clear and that's all Johannes asked about.
Yours,
Michael
Why Wayland can not be enabled by default the same way that byhyve was
enabled by default, even before it was production ready, so that people
could test how it works for them? Wayland isn't going anywhere, rather
the opposite, and having it on by default will allow to catch issues
earlier. If it doesn't break the existing stuff then isn't it a win-win
situation?
GrzegorzJ
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
