Re: [dev] Wayland st!!??

From: Michael Forney <>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:35:53 -0700

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:47:49 +0200, Silvan Jegen <> wrote:
> So the reason you would not want dwm to be a shell plugin for Weston is
> that Weston is too focused on fancy modern features, correct?

Eh, maybe I am being a bit too hard on Weston. It just seems to be
growing quite steadily which scares me and I wasn't thrilled with it

> Implementing a proxy wl_shell for this hypothetical blitting compositor
> and having dwm as a separate process communicating with it would be
> another possible approach.

Yeah, that's what I tried to describe.

Michael Forney <>
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 13:35:53 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Jul 29 2013 - 13:48:06 CEST