On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: > On vr, 2013-02-08 at 10:20 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote: > > > I appreciate your effort and have no objection against adding Wayland. > > > > However, to limit people's enthusiasm about this, I just want to remark > > that having Wayland installed now is not incredibly useful: Weston is > > AFAIK the only compositor available at this time, and it is, as you > > mention, a demo (there was talk of some tiling WM being ported to > > Wayland, I forgot the name). Also you'll use XWayland most of the time. > > > > When Qt5 gets released and Qt4 applications are ported (which will > > likely happen for all Qt4 applications), there'll be at least many > > applications that can use Wayland natively. When KDE is ported to Qt5, > > we'll also get kwin as a more feature-rich Wayland compositor. > > > > I didn't read about the GTK situation yet, but I guess GTK3 has Wayland > > support already. > > This is my main concern for Wayland at this moment. Though it looks cool > to support new technology and having released versions of Wayland with > 1.x versioning, I doubt there's much use for it at this moment. Running > X inside of wayland is a nice feature for apps that aren't ported yet, > but if you only run apps that aren't ported yet, there's no use for > Wayland at the moment. > > Anyways, to get everything out of Wayland, this needs: > - wayland backend in GTK3 > - GL backend in cairo (experimental) > - EGL/GLES backends in Mesa > > For GTK3 I don't think there's a big issue, it's just a backend > resulting in some additional files and (optional?) dependencies. > > For Cairo, the GL backend is experimental. Given the fact that upstream > fails to provide a stable release model for cairo (every released > version is taken from master, featuring regressions), I wouldn't even > think about enabling an experimental backend there.
Upstream also claims that applications which don't make use of the GL backend won't be bothered at all. I don't see the harm in a trial run through [testing]. > For Mesa, we have to look at how we can implement this without breaking > existing stuff. I haven't looked much at Mesa recently, so I can't tell > much about this. Backends are enabled on a priority basis. As long as we pass "--with-egl-platforms=x11,drm,wayland" (in that order), we're fine. d
