On Monday, June 17, 2013 05:32:56 PM Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:13:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I think Jonathon's post earlier today captures the core issue: > > > > On Monday, June 17, 2013 09:05:08 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Thomas Voß wrote: > > > > Yup :) I think a good way forward is to coordinate a call with > > > > Jonathan and Martin from KWin such that we can walk through the code > > > > together and identify the central points that would need to be mapped > > > > to Mir. We can then start discussing potential solutions how to add > > > > KWin support for Mir. > > > > > > I'm afraid I don't have interest in such a call and neither do the > > > KWin maintainers. I don't know anything about the KWin codebase or > > > how to begin porting it to another platform. KWin are busy porting it > > > to Wayland, the display server with consensus across Linux distros and > > > have no interest in supporting a display server with unstable API/ABI > > > that is only in one distro (from a company who have a track record of > > > not maintaining their features, we're having to drop indicator menu > > > support in Kubuntu because it's changed API). Porting KWin to Mir > > > would take several man-months at least and ongoing maintenance and I'm > > > very skeptical Canonical would take that on. > > > > As long as Canonical declines to work with the rest of the free software > > community, > > Well, I think that's an altogether inaccurate and unfair characterization. > Canonical has always been open to working with "the rest of the free > software community"; what Canonical has not been willing to do is blindly > follow where certain self-appointed "upstreams" would lead, when that > conflicts with the business's goals. Wayland was evaluated, and found not > to be suitable as a basis for Unity (as has been discussed elsewhere) - > thus, Wayland is not an upstream of Canonical (nor, TTBOMK, of any other > existing distros at the moment). Canonical has made a decision to implement > its own display server / compositor, in the form of Mir, and as expressed > in this thread is open to working with developers from other desktops to > see whether Mir can meet their needs as well. > > The KWin maintainer wasted no time after Mir was announced to make it clear > that he wanted no part of it. I think that's unfortunate, but I also don't > think that says anything about *Canonical's* willingness to work with others > in the free software community. > > > By deciding to do Mir, Canonical decided to go on it's own path that is > > not the one that the rest of the community was on. They're still on the > > path they were on and while it may be reasonable for Canonical to do it's > > own thing, I think Canonical has to also expect everyone else isn't going > > to drop their plans and toe the Canonical line about the future of > > $PROJECT (it could be any number of things, in this case it's what > > replaces X). AFAICT, both KDE and Gnome are satisfied with the path they > > are on with Wayland, so Mir is not interesting for them (I know far less > > about it for Gnome, but that's my understanding). > > There's no expectation from Canonical's side that others will drop existing > plans to "toe the Canonical line". OTOH, as a bystander my understanding is > that Wayland has yet to advance beyond the level of a pet project - not > something production-ready that projects can rely on in a shipping release. > So I think it would behoove projects like GNOME and KDE to give Mir a fair > shake, rather than dismissing it because they've already hitched their cart > to Wayland. > > > I do think that the long term effect on flavors that aren't deeply > > embedded in the Canonical technology set is reasonably clear and we > > shouldn't try to hide it. > > Certainly, flavors that are unable to align with technologies chosen for > Ubuntu will find themselves with more work to do to keep up quality and be > releasable. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this means > Kubuntu will be unreleasable because KWin will only support Wayland while > Canonical will only support X and Mir in Ubuntu; but certainly someone would > have to step up to provide *some* maintainable combination of components > here (either Wayland in Ubuntu, or KWin with support for X or Mir backend, > or...) > > I'm personally optimistic that, given good will and an openness to > collaboration on the part of the various upstreams, and leadership from the > Kubuntu team about how the future display architecture should look for this > flavor, you would find more than enough resources to help with the > implementation. But beyond the open hand the Mir developers have already > offered here in this thread, this is really out of Canonical's control.
I agree. This is more about consequences of decisions already taken. I don't see a good solution. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
