Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
El jue, 21-03-2013 a las 14:27 +0100, Maciej Piechotka escribió: > On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 14:17 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:31:38PM +, Patrick Welche wrote: > > > More of a Wayland FAQ, but on which OSes does Wayland run? > > > > I thought it is not Linux-only, but I am not sure. Anyone know? > > > > Quick Google search shows that at least FreeBSD is porting (considering > porting?) Wayland to it's architecture. I haven't found anything on > NetBSD/OpenBSD. As far as I know, the bulk of the porting work done so far for FreeBSD was by me, since I needed it for something else. I don't intend to maintain a FreeBSD port, though that doesn't stop anyone else taking it on. With some improvements to FreeBSD itself, the differences for Wayland on Linux and FreeBSD shouldn't be too different. I would expect the other BSDs to be similar. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:32:51PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Spring is in the air - things change, people are looking for things to > try and new goals. I propose that we set ourselves a new goal: port > GNOME to Wayland Based on the lack of negative feedback, I've updated https://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/WhatWeRelease with the following: | Recommended components | | It is assumed and encouraged (but not required!) that distributions | make use of the following technologies: | * Wayland | * systemd The assumed and encouraged means that you might run into bugs we have not noticed because we (most GNOME developers) do not test the other code paths much. Obviously that is a slow gradual process for Wayland. At the moment, no Wayland thing. In future you might have to file some bugs. Plan is to revisit this at GNOME 3.10. Please do not forget it also specifies "but not required". On a personal note I highly encourage Linux distributions to use systemd irrespective of any "not required". -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 14:17 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:31:38PM +, Patrick Welche wrote: > > More of a Wayland FAQ, but on which OSes does Wayland run? > > I thought it is not Linux-only, but I am not sure. Anyone know? > Quick Google search shows that at least FreeBSD is porting (considering porting?) Wayland to it's architecture. I haven't found anything on NetBSD/OpenBSD. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:31:38PM +, Patrick Welche wrote: > More of a Wayland FAQ, but on which OSes does Wayland run? I thought it is not Linux-only, but I am not sure. Anyone know? -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
"stefan skoglund(agj)" a écrit: > I dont think Redhat wants The correct way to write it is Red Hat -- not Redhat, nor RedHat or whatever. Thank you for keeping that in mind in your future messages. -- Dodji ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland NFS performance in GNOME 3
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:48:40AM +0100, stefan skoglund(agj) wrote: > The RedHat thing is a really longlived bug in redhats bugzilla about > gvfs metadata induced overload of NFS servers. That bug is rather bad > and i think that if it isn't resolved it will make GNOME3 impossible to > run in NFS-environments. Could you please stop using vague phrases like 'RedHat thing'. I have no idea what you're talking about. Either be specific, or just stop. It seems you're referring to GNOME, which is not a 'RedHat thing'. But actually I have no clue at all what you're suggesting with that. I am pretty sure that you're wrong though. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland NFS performance in GNOME 3
mån 2013-03-18 klockan 09:10 -0700 skrev Sriram Ramkrishna: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, stefan skoglund(agj) wrote: > fre 2013-03-15 klockan 14:32 -0400 skrev Matthias Clasen: > > > I dont think Redhat wants to have the same type of > conversation they had > with an client about GVFS bad behaviour when running over NFS > if an > wayland compositor is sensitive to the same type of race > condition as > gvfsd. > > > > In general, using NFS is a bad idea for a desktop in any case. As you > say there is any number of conditions due to locking that could cause > race conditions. > > > OR is the gnome community of the belief that NFS-accessed home > directories is obsolete ? > The race condition in gvfsd can be triggered in the use case > of a single > user desktop on a single machine but said machine needs to be > heavily > loaded. > > > > Speaking of someone who has been in a very large enterprise > environment where our home directories were all NFS mounted, we never > ran into these issues. Why? Because we all ran fvwm and not a full > blown desktop OS. > I have a university lab setup with gnome 3.6 desktop environment in debian wheezy and Kerberized NFS-access to the home directory (the server is a Nexenta Appliance.) It is enough to say that login performance is abysmal. I think this steems from the heavy usage of dconf at login-time (at least 1 minute from login in gdm to a working desktop.) This is on 4 year old HP AMD64 hardware and intel i745 (?) hardware. I occasionally also have a bit of trouble with Pulseaudio's .pulse directory in this environment. A pristine KDE in the same setup has very nice login performance so do enlightenment (of course.) The RedHat thing is a really longlived bug in redhats bugzilla about gvfs metadata induced overload of NFS servers. That bug is rather bad and i think that if it isn't resolved it will make GNOME3 impossible to run in NFS-environments. I hope that Weston (for example) doesn't create a situation like that but i'm pessimistic. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland NFS performance in GNOME 3
We have a gnome-integration list dedicated to integrating GNOME into environments. That would be a great place to discuss and figure it out. I'd like to see if we can make GNOME better in environments like yours. Login performance is slow even without NFS. Boot up performance to GDM seems to work pretty good. But after that, it has sucked ass. I refer you to this; https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2012-May/msg00089.html on trying to find some real values on debugging the slow start up. I fear though that is out of topic for this mailing list. So follow ups to gnome-integration would be appreciated. sri On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:48 PM, stefan skoglund(agj) < stefan.skogl...@agj.net> wrote: > mån 2013-03-18 klockan 09:10 -0700 skrev Sriram Ramkrishna: > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, stefan skoglund(agj) > wrote: > > fre 2013-03-15 klockan 14:32 -0400 skrev Matthias Clasen: > > > > > > I dont think Redhat wants to have the same type of > > conversation they had > > with an client about GVFS bad behaviour when running over NFS > > if an > > wayland compositor is sensitive to the same type of race > > condition as > > gvfsd. > > > > > > > > In general, using NFS is a bad idea for a desktop in any case. As you > > say there is any number of conditions due to locking that could cause > > race conditions. > > > > > > OR is the gnome community of the belief that NFS-accessed home > > directories is obsolete ? > > The race condition in gvfsd can be triggered in the use case > > of a single > > user desktop on a single machine but said machine needs to be > > heavily > > loaded. > > > > > > > > Speaking of someone who has been in a very large enterprise > > environment where our home directories were all NFS mounted, we never > > ran into these issues. Why? Because we all ran fvwm and not a full > > blown desktop OS. > > > > I have a university lab setup with gnome 3.6 desktop environment in > debian wheezy and Kerberized NFS-access to the home directory (the > server is a Nexenta Appliance.) It is enough to say that login > performance is abysmal. I think this steems from the heavy usage of > dconf at login-time (at least 1 minute from login in gdm to a working > desktop.) This is on 4 year old HP AMD64 hardware and intel i745 (?) > hardware. > > I occasionally also have a bit of trouble with Pulseaudio's .pulse > directory in this environment. > > A pristine KDE in the same setup has very nice login performance so do > enlightenment (of course.) > > The RedHat thing is a really longlived bug in redhats bugzilla about > gvfs metadata induced overload of NFS servers. That bug is rather bad > and i think that if it isn't resolved it will make GNOME3 impossible to > run in NFS-environments. > I hope that Weston (for example) doesn't create a situation like that > but i'm pessimistic. > > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:50:49AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > > Hi, just to clarify: For 3.12, you would like to drop support for > > running gnome-shell or mutter on X directly and only support Wayland? > > I understand that X apps will still run on top of GNOME Shell on > > Wayland. > > I'm not sure that we should drop it too eagerly...there's bound to be > some problems with Wayland in some situations, so will be nice to have > X to fall back on for a while. But we should avoid X becoming the new > fallback mode, where we are permanently stuck with supporting two code > paths for everything. More of a Wayland FAQ, but on which OSes does Wayland run? Cheers, Patrick ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 14:58, stefan skoglund(agj) wrote: > I wont be able to run wayland on my machine (old nv20-based graphical > card.) Anyone with a spare agp card with really good support in current > day X.org (http://X.org) ? Weston can composite with pixman, you don't need accelerated GL drivers. Ross ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, stefan skoglund(agj) < stefan.skogl...@agj.net> wrote: > fre 2013-03-15 klockan 14:32 -0400 skrev Matthias Clasen: > > > I dont think Redhat wants to have the same type of conversation they had > with an client about GVFS bad behaviour when running over NFS if an > wayland compositor is sensitive to the same type of race condition as > gvfsd. > > In general, using NFS is a bad idea for a desktop in any case. As you say there is any number of conditions due to locking that could cause race conditions. > OR is the gnome community of the belief that NFS-accessed home > directories is obsolete ? > The race condition in gvfsd can be triggered in the use case of a single > user desktop on a single machine but said machine needs to be heavily > loaded. > > Speaking of someone who has been in a very large enterprise environment where our home directories were all NFS mounted, we never ran into these issues. Why? Because we all ran fvwm and not a full blown desktop OS. It would be better to run desktops in their own virtual machines or on bare metal. Then use desktop backup software to back things up. This is precisely the model we are currently moving to. > I wont be able to run wayland on my machine (old nv20-based graphical > card.) Anyone with a spare agp card with really good support in current > day X.org ? > > I'll see if I have one. But getting a used recent graphics card should be a fairly easy thing to do, yes? sri > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
fre 2013-03-15 klockan 14:32 -0400 skrev Matthias Clasen: > Spring is in the air - things change, people are looking for things to > try and new goals. I propose that we set ourselves a new goal: port > GNOME to Wayland > > Wayland has reached the 1.0 milestone recently and it has already had > some good success in the embedded space. Many of us have silently > assumed that Wayland is the future display system on Linux, and that > we will get to using it eventually. But to reach its full potential, > it needs the push of a full desktop porting project. I think GNOME is > the right project for this and now is the right time for us to embrace > Wayland. > > I am confident that the Wayland and X communities will be able to help > us in reaching this goal. One thing i which concerns me is how the different compositors (gnome-shell, kwin, mutter and enlightenment) will behave if the users home directory is delivered thru NFS . I dont think Redhat wants to have the same type of conversation they had with an client about GVFS bad behaviour when running over NFS if an wayland compositor is sensitive to the same type of race condition as gvfsd. OR is the gnome community of the belief that NFS-accessed home directories is obsolete ? The race condition in gvfsd can be triggered in the use case of a single user desktop on a single machine but said machine needs to be heavily loaded. I wont be able to run wayland on my machine (old nv20-based graphical card.) Anyone with a spare agp card with really good support in current day X.org ? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Hi, just to clarify: For 3.12, you would like to drop support for > running gnome-shell or mutter on X directly and only support Wayland? > I understand that X apps will still run on top of GNOME Shell on > Wayland. I'm not sure that we should drop it too eagerly...there's bound to be some problems with Wayland in some situations, so will be nice to have X to fall back on for a while. But we should avoid X becoming the new fallback mode, where we are permanently stuck with supporting two code paths for everything. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On 18 March 2013 05:10, Martyn Russell wrote: > Is this likely to cause regressions or be problematic with OpenGL or Wine > based aps/games running on the GNOME shell desktop? I understand vaguely the > relationship between GTK+ and Wayland, but not how a raw GL based > application or how a Wine based app would work with Wayland? Actually for applications that do full-screen GL, expect them to work faster in Wayland/Weston, as it can use the application surface as the output and just flip buffers - no compositing required. For Wine, you'd have to speak to the Wine maintainers as whether they do a Wayland port or Xwayland is required. Again, xwayland isn't the performance hit you'd expect from a nested environment. Ross ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > I'm asking this out of my own curiosity... what kind of porting work > would be required for an 'application' to be ported to wayland ? > > Shouldn't that be transparent for most applications by virtue > of linking against the new default wayland GDK backend ? > > i.e. usage of the gtk+-3.0.pc would imply wayland anyway > in the bright future where GTK+ is installed on a wayland > capable system, right ? > > Will applications need to update configure.ac to specify > a specific GDK backend ? (for systems which might > offer both GTK+ backends, x11 and wayland ?) > > And... basically I suppose we're mostly talking about applications > which explicitly #include that might need any > porting, if any applications do need porting ? Emmanuele answered all of this already, but just to give an impression, https://live.gnome.org/Wayland/Applications shows how the applications in the gnome modulesets are doing on Wayland, currently. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 12:10 +, Martyn Russell wrote: > What are the benefits of moving to Wayland? I rather enjoyed the recent talk [1] given by Daniel Stone six weeks ago at LCA. I'd encourage anyone interested in learning more about Wayland who doesn't already know everything about it to watch the video [2]. [1]: http://lca2013.linux.org.au/schedule/30256/view_talk?day=friday [2]: http://mirror.linux.org.au/linux.conf.au/2013/mp4/The_real_story_behind_Wayland_and_X.mp4 Most of the talk is describing all the things that have piled up as a result of ~4 decades of decisions in the design and implementation of the X server [I'll apologize for encouraging you to watch something where there are lots of interjections from the audience that didn't make it to the audio track, but the room was full of X hackers - Kieth Packard and Carl Worth, that this list would know. Others, too] The end result is that [people who would know] having described all of X's shortcomings, Daniel then describe what Wayland *is*. It didn't take very long. And there in lies the answer to Martyn's question, I think. You can draw your own conclusions, but it's pretty impressive when people can step back from their work, learn from it, and head in a new direction. I surely can't wait for GTK and GNOME to be fully standing on this (much thinner) infrastructure. AfC Sydney signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On 15/03/13 18:32, Matthias Clasen wrote: For more details about Wayland see: http://wayland.freedesktop.org For more details about this proposal, see http://live.gnome.org/Wayland Let me know what you think, Hi Matthias, I had a few questions to satisfy my own curiosity :) I am neutral here (before I say anything further) - I do not prefer X or anything else. What are the benefits of moving to Wayland? Performance improvements? Smaller memory footprint? Something else? Is this likely to cause regressions or be problematic with OpenGL or Wine based aps/games running on the GNOME shell desktop? I understand vaguely the relationship between GTK+ and Wayland, but not how a raw GL based application or how a Wine based app would work with Wayland? Why do I ask this? Well, I've started playing more Steam games on Linux recently and historically played many through Wine and want to know the user impact. Thanks, -- Regards, Martyn Founder and CEO of Lanedo GmbH. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
hi Tristan; On 18 March 2013 08:31, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Matthias Clasen > wrote: >> features. Lastly, the GTK+ Wayland backend needs some love to reach >> parity with the X backend. We will retain the ability to run X >> applications in a compatibility mode, so there is no need to rush and >> port all the worlds applications to Wayland. Porting of applications >> can happen independently and at its own pace. > > I'm asking this out of my own curiosity... what kind of porting work > would be required for an 'application' to be ported to wayland ? not much, unless the application is using the GDK-X11 API directly - in which case, the application will have to be ported to detect the Wayland backend, and use the Wayland API. > Shouldn't that be transparent for most applications by virtue > of linking against the new default wayland GDK backend ? > > i.e. usage of the gtk+-3.0.pc would imply wayland anyway > in the bright future where GTK+ is installed on a wayland > capable system, right ? correct. > Will applications need to update configure.ac to specify > a specific GDK backend ? (for systems which might > offer both GTK+ backends, x11 and wayland ?) no. we have run-time detection code for that since GDK started allowing multiple backends to be compiled in the same shared object; applications are supposed to check non only that the GDK they are using has been compiled against all the backends they support, but also that the GDK backend being currently used is supported by the application. > And... basically I suppose we're mostly talking about applications > which explicitly #include that might need any > porting, if any applications do need porting ? again, correct. though we do have platform-specific code in public headers for GTK as well: GtkPlug and GtkSocket are only available on X11, for instance. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Spring is in the air - things change, people are looking for things to > try and new goals. I propose that we set ourselves a new goal: port > GNOME to Wayland > > Wayland has reached the 1.0 milestone recently and it has already had > some good success in the embedded space. Many of us have silently > assumed that Wayland is the future display system on Linux, and that > we will get to using it eventually. But to reach its full potential, > it needs the push of a full desktop porting project. I think GNOME is > the right project for this and now is the right time for us to embrace > Wayland. > > I am confident that the Wayland and X communities will be able to help > us in reaching this goal. > > Initially, the main work in this effort will be to give gnome-shell > the ability to work as a Wayland compositor - something that has > already been demonstrated at last years Guadec in La Coruna. Then we > need to port functionality for which we've so far relied on the X > server, such as display configuration or keyboard accessibility > features. Lastly, the GTK+ Wayland backend needs some love to reach > parity with the X backend. We will retain the ability to run X > applications in a compatibility mode, so there is no need to rush and > port all the worlds applications to Wayland. Porting of applications > can happen independently and at its own pace. I'm asking this out of my own curiosity... what kind of porting work would be required for an 'application' to be ported to wayland ? Shouldn't that be transparent for most applications by virtue of linking against the new default wayland GDK backend ? i.e. usage of the gtk+-3.0.pc would imply wayland anyway in the bright future where GTK+ is installed on a wayland capable system, right ? Will applications need to update configure.ac to specify a specific GDK backend ? (for systems which might offer both GTK+ backends, x11 and wayland ?) And... basically I suppose we're mostly talking about applications which explicitly #include that might need any porting, if any applications do need porting ? Cheers, -Tristan > > As far as a roadmap is concerned, I am fairly optimistic that we can > have gnome-shell work as a Wayland compositor within 6 months. That > will allow us to have optional Wayland support in GNOME 3.10, while > still using X by default. Reaching this milestone by 3.10 will enable > experimentation with Wayland, and should help us to take the next step > for GNOME 3.12: a fully converted desktop, with no regressions. If we > realize during 3.12 development that we won't be able to close all > feature gaps in time for 3.12, it should be possible to keep > gnome-shell on X for one more cycle without affecting the rest of the > desktop too much. > > This proposal is mine, but it has been discussed with the release > team, as well as with gnome-shell, GTK+ and Wayland maintainers. > > For more details about Wayland see: http://wayland.freedesktop.org > For more details about this proposal, see http://live.gnome.org/Wayland > > > Let me know what you think, > > Matthias > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
hi Jeremy; yes, unported applications still using X11 should be able to run unmodified under an hybrid X/Wayland compositor. what Matthias was detailing for the 3.12 cut-off cycle is running GNOME Shell as a Wayland compositor by default, instead of an X11 one. ciao, Emmanuele. On 15 March 2013 20:44, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 15 March 2013 14:32, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> As far as a roadmap is concerned, I am fairly optimistic that we can >> have gnome-shell work as a Wayland compositor within 6 months. That >> will allow us to have optional Wayland support in GNOME 3.10, while >> still using X by default. Reaching this milestone by 3.10 will enable >> experimentation with Wayland, and should help us to take the next step >> for GNOME 3.12: a fully converted desktop, with no regressions. If we >> realize during 3.12 development that we won't be able to close all >> feature gaps in time for 3.12, it should be possible to keep >> gnome-shell on X for one more cycle without affecting the rest of the >> desktop too much. > > Hi, just to clarify: For 3.12, you would like to drop support for > running gnome-shell or mutter on X directly and only support Wayland? > I understand that X apps will still run on top of GNOME Shell on > Wayland. > > Jeremy > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Hi, just to clarify: For 3.12, you would like to drop support for > running gnome-shell or mutter on X directly and only support Wayland? > I understand that X apps will still run on top of GNOME Shell on > Wayland. Why you bother to do this? Because you hope that GNOME Shell will run on top of XMir? You made my day. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Porting GNOME to Wayland
On 15 March 2013 14:32, Matthias Clasen wrote: > As far as a roadmap is concerned, I am fairly optimistic that we can > have gnome-shell work as a Wayland compositor within 6 months. That > will allow us to have optional Wayland support in GNOME 3.10, while > still using X by default. Reaching this milestone by 3.10 will enable > experimentation with Wayland, and should help us to take the next step > for GNOME 3.12: a fully converted desktop, with no regressions. If we > realize during 3.12 development that we won't be able to close all > feature gaps in time for 3.12, it should be possible to keep > gnome-shell on X for one more cycle without affecting the rest of the > desktop too much. Hi, just to clarify: For 3.12, you would like to drop support for running gnome-shell or mutter on X directly and only support Wayland? I understand that X apps will still run on top of GNOME Shell on Wayland. Jeremy ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
