On 21/12/2017 03:19, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On 21. Dec 2017, at 02:14, Chris H wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" said
On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +
On 12/20/17 23:21, roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
First off, I'm not trying to bring up any flame... my questions are real
and I'd really welcome good answers.
Yuri writes:
It appears that this is the case of fixing of something (xorg)
that wasn't/isn't broken in the first place. And if
On 12/20/17 23:21, roberth...@rcn.com wrote:
To the list:
I salute X for doing its job, but I have no brand loyalty. If
something comes along that is some combination of a) more robust, b)
faster, and c) as easy to install/manage I'll switch in a heartbeat.
(Smaller footprint
On 12/20/2017 21:47, Niclas Zeising wrote:
> On 12/20/17 10:20, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
>> 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
Thanks for the explanation, Kevin.
I should have included more background information about what Wayland
is and what turning it on by default means in more detail.
Again to clarify, enabling Wayland by default does not change
anything, it simply adds more options. Similar to adding a X11 window
> On 21. Dec 2017, at 02:14, Chris H wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" said
>
>> > On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +
Wayland should not be mixed in with other code like gtk3, gtk2, gnome related
programs. This will immediately create bloat.
Wayland does remove a lot of unneeded obsolete code that is in Xorg, that is
put in there by principle, and not much else. If gtk creeps into Wayland, those
benefits will
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" said
> On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 + said
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 + "Johannes Lundberg"
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
> > On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +
> said
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 + "Johannes Lundberg" <
> On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 + said
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 + "Johannes Lundberg"
> said
>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H
Yuri writes:
> It appears that this is the case of fixing of something (xorg)
> that wasn't/isn't broken in the first place. And if it is
> considered broken, then how, in which way?
You ask "Is it broken?".
I ask "Is there a better way?"
Think about gcc: it was
On 12/20/2017 11:49, n...@arrishq.net wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
Hi
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.
On 12/20/17 10:20, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
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
Hi,
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
Hi
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.
and why does everyone
I support adding wayland support on by default as well. It
still is WIP in several areas one I have not seen mentioned
yet includes nvidia graphics cards. Needing to rebuild
several ports just to test does seem a bit too much though.
Best regards,
Richard Gallamore
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:14
Hi Yuri
To be clear, we're not transitioning to anything, we're simply adding
more options. Compare it to adding a new window manager for X, it
doesn't mean you have to stop using the existing ones...
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Yuri wrote:
> On 12/20/17 01:20, Johannes
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 + said
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 + "Johannes Lundberg"
said
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 + "Johannes Lundberg"
On 12/20/17 01:20, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
For any Desktop user (as well as embedded devices
like IVI-systems and whatnot), Wayland is the future. There's no
escaping that.
Over the history of its development, Wayland could never clearly answer
the question "What are the benefits of Wayland
I would rather see smaller window managers work with Wayland first.
If gtk2 and gtk3 want to enable it fine. But gtk2 and gtk3 shouldn't be mixed
in with Wayland by default, which is what will happen if it is enabled before
it gets a foothold with other window managers.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Johannes Lundberg
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 + "Johannes Lundberg" <
> johal...@gmail.com>
> > said
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I want to suggest that we
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 + "Johannes Lundberg"
> said
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I want to suggest that we enable wayland by default. In current state
>> having some parts of wayland in ports is basically
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 + "Johannes Lundberg" 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.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:13 PM, antranigv wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Trying to understand the changes that would be made by making wayland=on
> by default.
>
> I see a lot of people moving to Wayland from X, but if we do wayland=on,
> what will this mean to Xorg people? from the
Looking forward to testing Wayland more on FreeBSD.
So yes please!
-Tommi
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
> > On 20. Dec 2017, at 13:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 09:20:20AM +, Johannes
> On 20. Dec 2017, at 13:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 09:20:20AM +, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
>> 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
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 09:20:20AM +, Johannes Lundberg wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> The normal scenario would be for FreeBSD to wait until other distros have
> throughly vetted the application/protocol/device/other and then consider
> adding it to the basic FreeBSD structure. Unfortunately, by that time the
> target has moved on and FreeBSD is as all too often late to the
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 +, Johannes Lundberg stated:
>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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo