On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:15:59PM +1000, oneofthem wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:43:00PM -0700, Michael Forney wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:17:42 -0400, Carlos Torres <vlaadbrain_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I didn't know about this
> > >
> > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQyMTQ
> > >
> > > I'm both excited or looking to troll
> >
> > I'm the author of the port. I'm not sure how the suckless community
> > feels about Wayland, but it seems like the core protocol is fairly
> > lightweight, depends only on libffi, and is refreshing to work with
> > compared to X. Weston's goals are perhaps more orthogonal to suckless,
> > but I think there is potential for a suckless compositor.
>
> I'd rather use dwm + wayland than dwm + xorg.
>
I am very interested in st (as well as other suckless projects)
on weston/wayland as well.
The wayland protocol seems to be very concise and it certainly does not
come with all of the legacy baggage of X. That said, I noticed that the
wayland port of the st code is around 70 lines longer than the X
version[1]. I have not investigated way that is though.
As far as I know dwm would have to be ported as a wayland-compositor
(which does not do any composing). Does anyone know of a
dwm-port/suckless-compositor for the wayland protocol that is still
being actively developed?
[1]
https://github.com/michaelforney/st/blob/wayland/st.c (wayland
vs. master branch)
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 09:59:06 CEST