Vote: making wayland=on default

Michael Gmelin freebsd at grem.de
Thu Dec 21 03:19:47 UTC 2017



> On 21. Dec 2017, at 02:14, Chris H <portmaster at BSDforge.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:29:40 +0100 "Michael Gmelin" <freebsd at grem.de> said
> 
>> > On 20. Dec 2017, at 18:50, Chris H <portmaster at BSDforge.com> wrote:
>> > > 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
>> > 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 isolate itself as it's own port(s), and include those
> dependencies it requires. This is supposed to be policy. IOW if I decide
> to include gtk3 as an option to one of the ports I'm installing as a run/
> build depends, I don't want it installing Wayland, mesa, and a bunch of
> other things I don't need -- no matter how small they might be.

It's supposed to be insignificant in size, a small price compared to maintaining multiple versions of these ports. Just for comparison, on my system, gtk3 from pkg.freebsd.org requires about 450MiB including dependencies.

> Doesn't that just make sense for *any* port? That's really my only possible
> gripe. :-)
> 

I understand the ambition to keep things lean and in general I agree with this approach of only installing what you need, but having multiple versions/flavors of certain libraries doesn't seem viable (multiple flavors? Multiple versions of the same package? Building applications twice?). That's why I'm in favor of it.

Anyway, I think the positions are clear and that's all Johannes asked about.

Yours,
Michael


> --Chris
>> Yours,
>> Michael
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /Johannes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>> > >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list