Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    In my book, Ubuntu is the only distro suitable for non-geeks. Sorry
    If anything, the only distro suitable for non-geeks is Mageia. But this has gone beyond off-topic...

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    If anything, the only distro suitable for non-geeks is Mageia. But this has gone beyond off-topic...
    indeed, it has swung waaay off-topic....

    ...so the real question is does Magiea offer gtk+ with wayland support, unlike ubuntu?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Hmm, couldn't users submit those themselves? Or is it that only authors of the patches have the ability to do so?
    Yes, users could. It's merely the fact the kernel is not exactly an inviting environment to submit one's first patch, kind of like X. What would an user do if he can't code, and the patch comes back with "fix X, Y and Z"?

    The author of the patch is in the best position to submit it.

    I wonder why they have not bothered, then? (in this particular case). It's not like those are 'deal-makers/breakers' or offer Ubuntu some huge advantage (or even minor) over XYZ distro.
    I don't know any better than you. My best guess is the general lack of doing that in Ubuntu - "if we don't do that for anything else, why bother for these".
    The patches mentioned do offer an advantage, from few hundred ms to a second or two faster boot time, depending on hw and initrd size.

    If upstream wanted them why wait for Ubuntu to submit? The source code is out there, go get them and implement them. Why does it have to be a one way street? Isn't that the whole point of the GPL?
    Yes, the source is out there, and personally I've been using for long now.

    But if you're asking why this doesn't happen in general (upstream going around checking forks if they have useful code), it's usually lack of time and interest.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    indeed, it has swung waaay off-topic....

    ...so the real question is does Magiea offer gtk+ with wayland support, unlike ubuntu?
    It's actually a good question. Mageia is usually more conservative when it comes to defaults, but they also tend to have a lot of options if one chooses to tweak them. For instance, I installed it on one netbook just because it's pretty much the only distro I know of that has good Razor-Qt support. So I wouldn't be surprised if they set the Wayland flag on as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Yes, users could. It's merely the fact the kernel is not exactly an inviting environment to submit one's first patch, kind of like X. What would an user do if he can't code, and the patch comes back with "fix X, Y and Z"?

    The author of the patch is in the best position to submit it.
    Yea, that's true. Or the kernel maintainers can do that themselves, although I suppose that going through Ubuntu's patches is not the first idea that pops into mind when trying to deal with an issue...

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    61

    Default

    The title of this article is wrong: 'Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu'

    It didn't get marked "Won't Fix" for all of Ubuntu, as the title says, it got marked "Won't Fix" only for the upcoming Raring release. If you look at the linked bug, its status is still "Confirmed" for Ubuntu.

    I opened the bug. Ubuntu's request that the Wayland backend for GTK to be split out to a dynamic library before being included in one of their releases doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me. I just wish they mentioned it six months ago, last time they said they wouldn't include it in a release.

    Can't include this in Precise because it's a stable release....
    Can't include this in Quantal because it's too late in the release cycle, even though the bug was open before the Precise release....
    Can't include this in Raring because it would cause the GTK package to depend on a Wayland package....

    This is getting old.

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    I don't see any problem with the decision at this time. Wayland is not mature or ready for general consumption in any way, so why should they ship GTK with Wayland support? The very few users that like to experiment with Wayland just need to compile/install a Wayland-capable build of GTK. No big deal.
    Because shipping GTK with Wayland support will make it a lot easier for a lot more people to test, making it easier to make Wayland more mature and ready for general consumption. I think the process has already provided very useful testing which has found problems I think other distros would agree should be fixed.

    I wrote two different build scripts, and most of the Wayland build instructions, to make compiling from source as easy as possible, and increase testing. I still think it's a pain that far fewer people are willing to go through than those who will install a binary package from a default archive.

    [I switched from Ubuntu to Debian because of Ubuntu's Amazon ads.]

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Because shipping GTK with Wayland support will make it a lot easier for a lot more people to test, making it easier to make Wayland more mature and ready for general consumption. I think the process has already provided very useful testing which has found problems I think other distros would agree should be fixed.
    Ubuntu is not "other distros" and endless "testing" is not the goal of Canonical. They are not going to sacrifice stability or distributiion size for the sake of testers' convenience.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    Ubuntu is not "other distros" and endless "testing" is not the goal of Canonical. They are not going to sacrifice stability or distributiion size for the sake of testers' convenience.
    I think you must have misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm not suggesting increasing their iso size or doing anything I believe will sacrifice stability.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darxus View Post
    I think you must have misinterpreted what I wrote. I'm not suggesting increasing their iso size or doing anything I believe will sacrifice stability.
    Adding more backends to GTK = increasing distribution size and potentially creating new bugs.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    Adding more backends to GTK = increasing distribution size and potentially creating new bugs.
    Not if they're broken out into dynamically loadable libraries not included in the iso.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darxus View Post
    Not if they're broken out into dynamically loadable libraries not included in the iso.
    Someone in this thread mentioned that in case of GTK all backends are loaded at once and cannot be separated (unlike Qt).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •