I’m no expert on Wayland but I found this discussion on a Darwin port a while back: https://mastodon.technology/@bugaevc/101603518023241841
G. > Le 15 oct. 2019 à 13:31, Jack Howarth <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > > I asked Jeremy about potential Wayland support for macOS awhile back and > his response was that it was pointless duplication as Xquartz already > achieved the same goals. > Jack > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 4:40 AM Chris Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 15/10/2019 9:20 am, René J. V. Bertin wrote: >> > Chris Jones wrote: >> > >> > Sorry, missed your reply. >> > >> > I guess what I'm asking is: the legacy-support package/project must have >> > come >> > into existence because of an interest in running code that requires >> > functions >> > not present in all Mac OS versions - does that interest cover Wayland too? >> >> I am not disputing the idea that adding support for Wayland to MacPorts >> would be a good idea. It would be. Just that legacy-support is not the >> place to add it. It is there to add as required to older OSes low level, >> small, system library methods added in newer OSes. e.g. clock_gettime >> that only exists in 10.12+. It is not the place to add an entirely new >> feature set such as Wayland, to all OSes (no macOS release has wayland >> support). Wayland support should be added in its own dedicated set of >> ports, not shoe horned into one it has no place being in. >> >> cheers Chris >> >> > >> > I think that at some point we'll start seeing Wayland-only versions of >> > applications from the Gnome universe. >> > >> > R. >> >> >> >> Not really sure what you are asking. legacy-support package is blind to >> >> what ports might be using it. It just supplies functionality missing on >> >> older OSes. If some hypothetical future wayland port needs these >> >> functions, it presumably could use the PG in the same way as everything >> >> else does. >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> On 27/09/2019 9:32 am, René J.V. Bertin wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> A quick question to the legacy-support devs: do you have any interest in >> >>> whether or not these support functions (plus whatever else is needed and >> >>> doable) could help building Wayland for Mac? >> >>> >> >>> FWIW, I brought up the idea of running Wayland with Jeremy H. back when >> >>> he >> >>> was still maintaining XQuartz, and he was very positive about the idea >> >>> (including how it could improve X11 support - there's some sort of X11 >> >>> server >> >>> "backend" for Wayland). >> >>> >> >>> Proper Wayland support on Mac should also provide a more modern (and >> >>> better >> >>> integrated) platform for traditional Unix apps, possibly even for >> >>> KDE/KF5 as >> >>> an eco-system without need for patching Qt. >> >>> >> >>> R. >> >>> >> > >> >
