Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Grzegorz Junka]

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 +  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"



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 

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Andrea Venturoli]

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 it is
  considered broken, then how, in which way?


I have the same questions Yuri has... I've always seen Wayland 
enthusiasts saying they can't stand X11 no more, but I've never seen 
them explain what's wrong with it.
N.B. I'm not implying nothing is wrong, I just wish they explained their 
point.





You ask "Is it broken?".
I ask "Is there a better way?"
...
I think of X the same way.


Fine, I agree with this.
So, in what ways is Wayland better?





That said, I have nothing against having Wayland support by default.
I'm still ssh-ing into remote boxes to run graphical applications and I 
don't want to see this go away... but I read this is not going to happen 
(yet?), so it's fine to me.




 bye
av.
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Niclas Zeising]

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 would be nice too.)  Is that Wayland?  Fact not
(yet) in evidence.
Is Wayland-on-FreeBSD in active development?  If so: where -
other than ports@ - do I go to check the /status quo/?



Wayland and xwayland is part of the x11@ umbrella.  The mailing list 
used is freebsd-...@freebsd.org

Regards!
--
Niclas
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Guido Falsi]

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 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?
>>
> 
> 
> With my x11@ hat on.
> 
> I have no problem with this, as long as the old xorg stuff keeps on
> working, as you've stated they will do.  I do not have time to fix this
> this week, but if you can help me prepare a patch we can perhaps get it
> in after that (beginning of next week, in the days between Christmas and
> new years).  Do you know which ports are affected by this, and have a
> WAYLAND option?  We should also check, probably just in case, if portmgr
> thinks an exp run is needed (I don't think so).
> 

I recently added a WAYLAND option to the multimedia/libva port I
maintain. I set it to off by default but that can be changes without
problems.

-- 
Guido Falsi 
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Johannes Lundberg]

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
manager, you have the option to use it but don't have to...


On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
> 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" <
>> johal...@gmail.com>
>> > said
>> >
>> >> 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 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 

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Michael Gmelin]

> 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 +  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"
>> >> 
>> >> > 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 

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Sid]

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 be lost.

The current eagerness about wanting Wayland is centered around gtk. This will 
quickly harm the project.

Wayland should work on top of xlibs that are not obsolete.

Wayland shouldn't be made the default until small window managers like antiwm, 
blackbox, bspwm, ctwm, cwm, i3, jwm, qtile, vtwm and others like this work on 
it. It should also work on fluxbox and enlightenment first. Wayland on FreeBSD 
shouldn't be centered around GNU, gtk or Gnome.

I would say make a Wayland-gtk package offshoot, but this will also quickly 
ruin things. Wayland should stay clean, and allow modular components on top of 
it, that don't spread out bloat dependencies out. Wayland should keep the same 
habit as Xorg, with the exception of keeping obsolete hardware code.
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Chris H]

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" 

> said
> 
>> 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 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 

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Kevin Oberman]

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" <
> johal...@gmail.com>
> > said
> >
> >> 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 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 

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Michael Gmelin]

> 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  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 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.

Yours,
Michael


>> >>
>> >>
>> >> /Johannes
>> >
>> >
>>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> 

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[roberthuff]

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 developed in the mid '80s, and at the
time was pretty dang impressive.  But over time ... "provisional"
hacks to handle less-common hardware or specific software anomalies
became permanently entrenched (or so I am told) even as hardware
changed, and both compiler technology and coding practices improved.
I think of X the same way.


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 would be nice too.)  Is that Wayland?  Fact not
(yet) in evidence. 
Is Wayland-on-FreeBSD in active development?  If so: where -
other than ports@ - do I go to check the /status quo/?


Respectfully,


Robert Huff
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Pete Wright]

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. There's no
escaping that.


and why does everyone think a Unix should be run on a desktop only ?


I suspect you might be a little confused - no one is saying that Unix is 
going to be "desktop only" - this is in regards to where graphical 
interfaces is moving for Unix like operating systems in general.
And the "future", well, lot of companies are going to say "Cloud 
first" ;) is the future so the next thing-of-the-day will replace the 
today-thing-of-the-day to add what's required then and we're busy 
replacing things with the newest shiny technology because someone has 
to re-invent the wheel another time.


Personally I don't see much problems rebuilding some ports if I really 
want Wayland, but as long as some apps run on some RasPi's and 
embedded devices without a display using plain X11 is the way and 
Wayland adds just overhead.


how does adding support, by default, for Wayland in some graphical 
binaries add overhead to your system at run time?


no one is saying that this will supplant Xorg, but rather this will make 
it easier for more people in the FreeBSD community to actively test and 
dogfood Wayland.  the alternative is for FreeBSD to continue to be an 
afterthought by freedesktop and Wayland community which doesn't seem 
like a good long-term strategy IMHO.


-pete

--
Pete Wright
p...@nomadlogic.org
@nomadlogicLA

___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Niclas Zeising]

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 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?




With my x11@ hat on.

I have no problem with this, as long as the old xorg stuff keeps on 
working, as you've stated they will do.  I do not have time to fix this 
this week, but if you can help me prepare a patch we can perhaps get it 
in after that (beginning of next week, in the days between Christmas and 
new years).  Do you know which ports are affected by this, and have a 
WAYLAND option?  We should also check, probably just in case, if portmgr 
thinks an exp run is needed (I don't think so).


Regards!
--
Niclas
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[net]

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 think a Unix should be run on a desktop only ?
And the "future", well, lot of companies are going to say "Cloud first" 
;) is the future so the next thing-of-the-day will replace the 
today-thing-of-the-day to add what's required then and we're busy 
replacing things with the newest shiny technology because someone has to 
re-invent the wheel another time.


Personally I don't see much problems rebuilding some ports if I really 
want Wayland, but as long as some apps run on some RasPi's and embedded 
devices without a display using plain X11 is the way and Wayland adds just 
overhead.


Sure, that's my usage way and maybe 99% of all others have different 
opions.


---
Sent from my iP..., nah, sent from my coffee machine
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Ultima]

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 AM, Johannes Lundberg 
wrote:

> 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 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 for the end user?".
> > Additionally, they always advocated the removal of features like
> networked
> > connections, window manager features.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > But you are right, it is a reality that Wayand devs had enough
> horsepower to
> > eventually, after many years, make it and now impose it on everybody, and
> > force it to be a future reality.
> >
> > There are a lot of things that need to be verified that they work:
> x11vnc,
> > the ability to connect to a display remotely, every window manager should
> > work with it, ex. xfce4, dwm.
> >
> > People should be asking the question "What's the benefit of the
> transition
> > to X?". The answer should include the functional benefits to users, not
> just
> > "We need to switch to something called X." What new features or
> improvements
> > will users actually see?
> >
> >
> > Just my 2c.
> > Yuri
> >
> ___
> 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"
>
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Johannes Lundberg]

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 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 for the end user?".
> Additionally, they always advocated the removal of features like networked
> connections, window manager features.
>
> 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?
>
> But you are right, it is a reality that Wayand devs had enough horsepower to
> eventually, after many years, make it and now impose it on everybody, and
> force it to be a future reality.
>
> There are a lot of things that need to be verified that they work: x11vnc,
> the ability to connect to a display remotely, every window manager should
> work with it, ex. xfce4, dwm.
>
> People should be asking the question "What's the benefit of the transition
> to X?". The answer should include the functional benefits to users, not just
> "We need to switch to something called X." What new features or improvements
> will users actually see?
>
>
> Just my 2c.
> Yuri
>
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Chris H]

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"

> 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



>>
>>
>> /Johannes
>
>





___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Yuri]

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 for the end user?".
Additionally, they always advocated the removal of features like 
networked connections, window manager features.


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?


But you are right, it is a reality that Wayand devs had enough 
horsepower to eventually, after many years, make it and now impose it on 
everybody, and force it to be a future reality.


There are a lot of things that need to be verified that they work: 
x11vnc, the ability to connect to a display remotely, every window 
manager should work with it, ex. xfce4, dwm.


People should be asking the question "What's the benefit of the 
transition to X?". The answer should include the functional benefits to 
users, not just "We need to switch to something called X." What new 
features or improvements will users actually see?



Just my 2c.
Yuri

___
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"

re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Sid]

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.
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[blubee blubeeme]

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 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 :)
>
> >>
> >>
> >> /Johannes
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> 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"
>

I'd +1 to this
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Johannes Lundberg]

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 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 :)

>>
>>
>> /Johannes
>
>
>
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Chris H]

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.

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




/Johannes



___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Johannes Lundberg]

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 first thing I got is larger
> binaries for gtk and Qt. anything else that will happen? please fill me
> in, I'd love to vote wayland=on by default if people think it's the
> future, but without hurting people who still use and like Xorg.
>

Hi!

Yes, libraries that are common for X and Wayland like mesa-libs, qt5
and gtk30 will get a bit bigger in order to enable Wayland.
This is completely transparent to X users and does not affect
X-related stuff in anyway.

Using Wayland compositors like x11-wm/sway or x11-wm/weston is still
completely optional and can they can co-exist with any X server and
X11 window manager.
Simply run "startx" if you wanna run X or "weston-launch" if you wanna
run weston. Any X client should run fine in Weston (requires the pkg
"xwayland"), however the opposite is not true.


> Thanks in advance,
>
> antranigv
> https://antranigv.am/|PGP Key ID : 0xDAB81456
> /* do one thing and do it well */
>
> On 12/20/2017 01:20 PM, 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 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?
>>
>>
>> /Johannes
>> ___
>> 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"
>>
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Tommi Pernila]

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 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 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?
> >>
> >
> > I agree on that, we should activate wayland everywhere by defualt, as it
> does
> > not prevent at all from having a fully fonctionnal regular X working as
> well.
> >
> > All wayland option should be on, and this as nothing to do with flavors
> :)
> >
> > Please do it :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bapt
>
> I add my "vote" from the X11 list: Yes please, I had exactly that problem
> yesterday.
>
> Best,
> Michael
> ___
> 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"
>
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Michael Gmelin]

> 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
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> I agree on that, we should activate wayland everywhere by defualt, as it does
> not prevent at all from having a fully fonctionnal regular X working as well.
> 
> All wayland option should be on, and this as nothing to do with flavors :)
> 
> Please do it :)
> 
> Best regards,
> Bapt

I add my "vote" from the X11 list: Yes please, I had exactly that problem 
yesterday.

Best,
Michael
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Baptiste Daroussin]

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.
> 
> 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?
> 

I agree on that, we should activate wayland everywhere by defualt, as it does
not prevent at all from having a fully fonctionnal regular X working as well.

All wayland option should be on, and this as nothing to do with flavors :)

Please do it :)

Best regards,
Bapt


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Johannes Lundberg]

>
> 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 party.
>

Just to be clear. We're not talking about replacing X as the default
choice (if there's such a thing on FreeBSD). We simply want to make
Wayland more accessible to people who want to try it out or make it
their default desktop.
___
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"

Re: Vote: making wayland=on default

[Carmel NY]

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 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?

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 party.

I am considering firing up an older PC I have laying around,install the
latest version of FreeBSD and then trying out a few application that are
presently not available or like "wayland" need some massaging. It all depends
if I can actually get some free time. Wayland does look promising though, I
hate "X".

-- 
Carmel
___
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"

Vote: making wayland=on default

[Johannes Lundberg]

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?


/Johannes
___
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"