Pekka, Jason, Jason Ekstrand wrote on 2014-03-20: > > On Mar 20, 2014 9:59 AM, "Pekka Paalanen" <ppaala...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:31:31 +0000 >> "Konopelko, Pavel (P.)" <pkono...@visteon.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello everybody, >>> >>> Question: Given that somebody has Wayland/Weston 1.3 already >>> integrated in their system, what would it take to upgrade to the >>> upcoming Wayland/Weston 1.5? Is this just a matter of re-building it >>> and everything will continue working out of the box? Are there any >>> adjustments in the graphics stack (drivers, EGL support, etc.) needed >>> to support 1.5? Are there any adjustments on the application side >>> needed to work with 1.5? >> >> Hi, >> >> oh, 1.3 seems like ages ago, I can't remember. But, looking at the git >> history of few selected files should be enlightening, for instance in >> Wayland src/wayland-client.h and src/wayland-server.h, and also the >> protocol specification in protocol/wayland.xml. In Weston >> src/compositor.h. >> >> For clients, things are kept backward-compatible. For Weston plugins, >> change from 1.n to 1.n+1 is not guaranteed to be compatible. >> >> Libwayland API is stable and backward-compatible. The Wayland protocol >> is also kept stable, but we are moving from wl_shell to xdg_shell, >> though that probably does not concern you. >> >> On EGL front, you probably should be looking at the history of the >> specification files in Mesa, e.g.: >> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/log/docs/specs/WL_bind_wayl > and_display.spec >> to get an overview. >> >> I think application side should just work, all in all. > > As Pekka said, from the libwayland and client-side everything > *should* be stable. We've put a lot of work into keeping things > API and ABI-stable as we've changed them. EGL implementations > should be following the EGL API's that haven't changed. > > On the weston side, things are not so stable. In particular, the > weston_view structure was added in 1.4 and this changed the > weston scenegraph somewhat substantially. In particulare, the > concepts of "node in the scenegraph" and "client surface" were > split apart so that the same surface can appear at multiple > locations at once. If you are writing your own shell plugin this > change may be small or large depending on how the plugin is > written. My guess, given the little I understand about IVI is > that it shouldn't be too hard, but it won't be trivial.
Thanks a bunch for your feedback. I will go through the individual hints above to get a better picture. >>> Background: The question is related to the weston-ivi-shell patch >>> series submitted by Nobuhiko Tanibata. This work is connected to the >>> work that GENIVI [1] previously did in the area of IVI Layer >>> Management. On the GENIVI side, the original plan was to propose the >>> ivi- shell and the corresponding protocol to the Wayland project. >>> However, it was expected that it will take time to review and agree >>> the protocols. Until then the plan provided for adopting an out- >>> of-tree patch based on Wayland/Weston 1.3 for GENIVI purposes. Once >>> the ivi-shell would be integrated in Wayland/Weston, GENIVI would >>> switch to the upstream version. >>> >>> Now that the patch series was well accepted and that only a few >>> changes were suggested to the original protocol, it would make more >>> sense for GENIVI to align with the upstream right away. The only >>> catch is that the content of the next GENIVI release is being >>> finalized right now and the decision must be done quickly. During the >>> original reviews in GENIVI, using Wayland/Weston 1.3 as the basis was >>> already approved. The above question is an attempt to estimate the >>> impact of adopting 1.5 instead. Any hints and information on possible >>> upgrade problems would be therefore greatly > appreciated. >> >> Sorry, I think "well accepted" may still be a slight overstatement at >> the moment. It's just so hard to find time to review anything. When you >> get a "looks good to me" then that's accepted by that particular >> person, but even that is not enough to get into Wayland/Weston >> upstream. For that you need to convince Kristian, who seems to be >> extremely busy nowadays. > > Agreed. Personally, I like the direction the protocol has taken. > Unfortunately, I haven't had time to review any of the code or the > library api. As Pekka said, to a certain extent, we're waiting on > Kristian to be able to take a look at it and give an opinion on how it > ought to fit into the Wayland ecosystem. However, he's been pretty busy > with the X.org and GNOME merge windows coming up so I wouldn't expect a > lot for a little bit yet. OK, I see. It's always tempting to declare a job done. Thanks, --Pavel Konopelko _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
