For XOrg compilation instructions/process, I'd look at CRUX's ports [0][1]. It's at least a couple dozen ports to read through but at least they're simple port/shell scripts.
As for Nano-X (nee, microwindows), it's an X11-like API (though not compatible) derived from mini-X. microwindows adds a Win32 compatible API, and NXLib adds an X11 compatible API. You can even add non-accelerated OpenGL to it. The server architecture model is closer to classic X11 (all drivers built-in or built-out). It was an interesting set if code 15 years ago. Mozilla was even ported to it, before Mozilla obsoleted the X11-port and dedicated their time gtk-port. [0] http://crux.nu/ports/crux-3.3/xorg/xorg-server/Pkgfile [1] https://crux.nu/portdb/?a=repo&q=xorg On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Alba Pompeo <albapom...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's tinyxserver and the accompanying tinyxlib but they are kind of > abandoned. > I never tried it myself but if you do I'd be interested to know how it goes. > https://github.com/idunham/tinyxserver > https://github.com/idunham/tinyxlib > > There's also Nano-X and the accompanying nxlib but I don't know how > they compare. > https://github.com/ghaerr/microwindows > https://github.com/ghaerr/nxlib > > Good luck. > > > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Hiltjo Posthuma <hil...@codemadness.org> > wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 09:06:22AM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: >>> >>> Wayland in itself actually is a very nice protocol. However, you cannot >>> do much with it alone, as the compositor and everything on top (input >>> handling, clipboard, keyboard-layouts, ...) have to be done by hand. >>> >> >> Can you elaborate what you think is nice about the protocol vs X11 ? >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Hiltjo >> >
