Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

2016-03-29 6:23 GMT+03:00 Drew DeVault : > On 2016-03-29 2:15 AM, Martin Peres wrote: >> I was proposing for applications to just bind the interface and see if it >> works or not. But Giulio's proposal makes sense because it could be used to >> both grant and revoke rights on the

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33:15PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On 2016-03-29 10:30 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > I'm just going to put down my own personal thoughts on these. I mostly > > agree with Carsten on all of this. In general, my opinion is that it is > > completely pointless to add Wayland

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-29 11:31 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > my take on it is that it's premature and not needed at this point. in fact i > wouldn't implement a protocol at all. *IF* i were to allow special access, i'd > simply require to fork the process directly from compositor and provide a > socketpair

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-29 10:30 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > I'm just going to put down my own personal thoughts on these. I mostly > agree with Carsten on all of this. In general, my opinion is that it is > completely pointless to add Wayland protocols for things that has > nothing to do with Wayland what so

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:55:05 -0400 Drew DeVault said: > On 2016-03-28 11:03 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > should we? is it right to create yet another rsecurity model in userspace > > "quickly" just to solve things that dont NEED solving at least at this > > point. > > I don't

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 04:34:37PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > Greetings! I am the maintainer of the Sway Wayland compositor. > > http://swaywm.org > > It's almost the Year of Wayland on the Desktop(tm), and I have > reached out to each of the projects this message is addressed to (GNOME, >

Re: [PATCH weston v2 03/10] compositor: Track surface activity

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:25:24AM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote: > 2016-03-24 20:27 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington : > > Surfaces flagged as 'active' are considered of primary urgency to the > > user. It might be the surface with the keyboard focus or displaying > > something

Re: [PATCH v2 wayland-web] Updated build instructions for wayland-protocols and libwacom

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 07:37:33PM -0700, spit...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Bill Spitzak > > The Mint instructions have been tested, I had to guess at the Ubuntu12 > instructions as I no longer have that machine. > > v2: Use MAKEFLAGS instead of switches > Use instead of

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 04:34:37PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > Greetings! I am the maintainer of the Sway Wayland compositor. > > http://swaywm.org > > It's almost the Year of Wayland on the Desktop(tm), and I have > reached out to each of the projects this message is addressed to (GNOME, >

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 28/03/16 23:47, Drew DeVault wrote: On 2016-03-28 10:50 PM, Martin Peres wrote: Client->Server: What features do you support? Server->Client: These privledged features are available. Client->Server: I want this feature (nonblocking) [compositor prompts user to agree] Server->Client: Yes/no

Re: [libinput] How I get to scroll.wheel_click_angle value using libinput?

Hi, sorry for the delay, only just came back from holidays. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 02:53:41PM +0900, �� wrote: > Hello, guys. > > When I check mouse wheel events using libinput, > I found that this wheel value was always converted by libinput. > Like this: wheel_degrees.y = -1 * e->value *

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-28 10:50 PM, Martin Peres wrote: > >Client->Server: What features do you support? > >Server->Client: These privledged features are available. > >Client->Server: I want this feature (nonblocking) > >[compositor prompts user to agree] > >Server->Client: Yes/no > >[compositor enables the

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 28/03/16 16:04, Drew DeVault wrote: On 2016-03-28 9:08 AM, Giulio Camuffo wrote: On this, see https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2015-November/025734.html I have not been able to continue on that, but if you want to feel free to grab that proposal. I looked through this

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 28/03/16 16:03, Drew DeVault wrote: On 2016-03-27 10:21 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: I would rather the effort be spent making secure interfaces, exactly as you've described. Agreed. I think it should be pretty straightforward: Client->Server: What features do you support? Server->Client:

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 28/03/16 02:41, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: You're probably referring to my response when you say "GNOME does not care about cross-platform apps doing privileged operations". My response wasn't meant to be speaking on behalf of GNOME. These are my opinions and mine alone. I must have

Re: Introduction and updates from NVIDIA

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:06:04AM -0700, Andy Ritger wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:48:01AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:33:57PM -0700, Andy Ritger wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:52:21PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 22

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-28 4:35 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > If you want to add additional stuff on top of a live stream, use > something with a programmable pipeline that can add effects to the > stream coming from the compositor. Why do we need negotiation, or user > interation, or exchange of metadata for

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-28 11:03 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > should we? is it right to create yet another rsecurity model in userspace > "quickly" just to solve things that dont NEED solving at least at this point. I don't think that the protocol proposed in other branches of this thread is complex or short

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:00:34 -0400 Drew DeVault said: > On 2016-03-28 2:13 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > yes but you need permission and that is handled at kernel level on a > > specific file. not so here. compositor runs as a specific user and so you > > cant do that. you'd

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-28 9:08 AM, Giulio Camuffo wrote: > On this, see > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2015-November/025734.html > I have not been able to continue on that, but if you want to feel free > to grab that proposal. I looked through this protocol and it seems like it's a

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-27 10:21 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > I would rather the effort be spent making secure interfaces, exactly > as you've described. Agreed. I think it should be pretty straightforward: Client->Server: What features do you support? Server->Client: These privledged features are

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

On 2016-03-28 2:13 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > yes but you need permission and that is handled at kernel level on a specific > file. not so here. compositor runs as a specific user and so you cant do that. > you'd have to do in-compositor security client-by-client. It is different, but we

Re: [PATCH weston v4] refactor x11-backend configuration API

Sorry, i hit send by mistake before i was finished... 2016-03-28 11:45 GMT+03:00 Giulio Camuffo : > 2016-03-21 23:58 GMT+02:00 Benoit Gschwind : >> Use a "well" defined structure to configure x11-backend and move >> configuration >> file parsing

Re: [PATCH weston v4] refactor x11-backend configuration API

2016-03-21 23:58 GMT+02:00 Benoit Gschwind : > Use a "well" defined structure to configure x11-backend and move configuration > file parsing inside the weston compositor code. > > v4: add struct_version, and check for null pointer of the configuration > structure. > v3:

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v3] Add screensaver idle inhibitor protocol

2016-03-24 20:14 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington : > This interface allows disabling of screensaver/screenblanking on a > per-surface basis. As long as the surface remains visible and > non-occluded it blocks the screensaver, etc. from activating on the > output(s) that the

Re: [PATCH weston v2 03/10] compositor: Track surface activity

2016-03-24 20:27 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington : > Surfaces flagged as 'active' are considered of primary urgency to the > user. It might be the surface with the keyboard focus or displaying > something important; the exact specification of what 'active' means is > left as

Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

2016-03-27 23:34 GMT+03:00 Drew DeVault : > Greetings! I am the maintainer of the Sway Wayland compositor. > > http://swaywm.org > > It's almost the Year of Wayland on the Desktop(tm), and I have > reached out to each of the projects this message is addressed to (GNOME, > Kwin, and