Does either Gnome or KDE support Wayland on FreeBSD? [EOM]

[Denis Polygalov]

Hi Grzegorz,

my definition of "available out of the box" is
"user can start using software without compiling anything". :)
Above is my personal opinion of course, sorry for not making it clear.
Also, yes, you right, I was thinking only about standalone
Wayland compositors.
As Greg said currently Wayland+KDE support on FreeBSD is
better than for Wayland+Gnome.

Regards,
Denis

On 7/2/18, Grzegorz Junka <list1 at gjunka.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2018 03:41, Denis Polygalov wrote:
>> Hi Grzegorz,
>> "Currently FreeBSD supports Wayland compositor" - this statement is too
>> general.
>> To my knowledge the situation is like follows.
>> Currently FreeBSD support Wayland (protocol) out of the box, just type:
>> $ pkg install wayland
>> In order to be able to see anything on the screen (or in a window created
>> by X)
>> you need a so called "Wayland compositor".
>> In a world of Wayland the compositor is _the_ heavy stuff with wide
>> range of dependencies.
>> On FreeBSD currently there is no Wayland compositor available "out of
>> the box" i.e. from packages for example, so you have to compile one of
>> them by yourself.
>> Reference Wayland compositor - "Weston" is not in the ports tree yet but
>> you can
>> find FreeBSD port for it under review here:
>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10599?id=28017
>> In order to use Weston or any other Wayland compositor you need at least:
>> 11.2-RELEASE FreeBSD
>> drm-stable-kmod installed from ports
>> mesa-libs compiled from ports with Wayland support
>> Any other dependencies may differ for different Wayland compositors.
>> The Weston for example require custom kernel with evdev enabled.
>> kwin_wayland may require something else...
>> Another Wayland compositor I manage to get run on a GENERIC 11.2 kernel
>> is
>> graphics/qt5-wayland.
>>
>
> Thanks Denis. That explains a lot! From what I could check a Wayland
> compositor is supported in KWin from 5.4 (we have 5.12 in ports) and in
> GnomeShell from 3.18 (same we have in ports).
>
> That would imply that those two compositors are available from ports
> "out of the box", in contrary to your statement, unless they have been
> disabled, not tested, or are otherwise not fit for purpose? Or you meant
> that there are no standalone compositors available?
>
>