Vote: making wayland=on default

[Chris H]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:13:43 +0000 <freebsd-ports-owner at freebsd.org> said

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:59 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg" <johalun0 at gmail.com>
said

> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris H <portmaster at bsdforge.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:20 +0000 "Johannes Lundberg"
> <johalun0 at 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 :)
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
> >
> >
>>