1 |
Kent Fredric posted on Sun, 03 Sep 2017 18:44:00 +1200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:01:08 -0400 |
4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> Examples |
7 |
>> x11-libs/gtk+ |
8 |
>> x11-terms/terminology |
9 |
> |
10 |
> "desktop" came to mind for me for some reason. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> "desktop-apps/" |
13 |
> "desktop-libs/" |
14 |
> "desktop-terms/" |
15 |
> "desktop-themes/" |
16 |
> |
17 |
> All appeal more to me than |
18 |
> |
19 |
> "gui-apps/" |
20 |
> "gui-libs/" |
21 |
> "gui-terms/" |
22 |
> "gui-themes/" |
23 |
> |
24 |
> "Gui" just seems too vague and generic here, and also feels like |
25 |
> double-dipping. |
26 |
|
27 |
Vague/generic agreed in general. I'm not sure enough what you meant |
28 |
by double-dipping (tho I have a couple ideas) to say I agree there. |
29 |
|
30 |
But... |
31 |
|
32 |
> And it will be additionally confusing if any of those apps don't have |
33 |
> any GUI, like for instance: |
34 |
> |
35 |
> gui-apps/xset |
36 |
> |
37 |
> That just seems backwards to me. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> desktop-apps/xset |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Alright, I guess. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Maybe a category for non-graphical desktop-related tools should exist |
44 |
> instead. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> desktop-tools/xset |
47 |
|
48 |
How many of these xorg-suite apps have-been/will-be actually ported to |
49 |
wayland? I was under the impression that most of them will not be |
50 |
ported, and it'll be the up to whatever compositor and accompanying |
51 |
toolkit you choose to provide that functionality, as they generally |
52 |
already do... to a point. Certainly the compositor (aka |
53 |
super-window-manager) is the only app allowed to control/delegate many |
54 |
of the functions xset, xrandr, etc, set for xorg in common, for |
55 |
security reasons, because wayland simply doesn't let one app mess with |
56 |
and spy on another app's input stream, for instance, as X does. If only |
57 |
the compositor and/or apps it specifically authenticates for the purpose |
58 |
are allowed to do such settings, it quickly becomes a toolkit/DE function, |
59 |
and generic versions don't make a lot of sense as they simply won't work. |
60 |
|
61 |
In which case, keeping the "legacy" x11-* names for such x-specific apps, |
62 |
the better to eventually deprecate, mask, and send off to the |
63 |
user-maintained "X-sunset" overlay, may make the most sense and will |
64 |
almost certainly be less trouble. |
65 |
|
66 |
And where there is a port, as presumably there is or will be for |
67 |
many of the x11-libs, does it make sense to keep separate x11-* |
68 |
and wayland-* categories where they differ, or throw them all together |
69 |
in a heap? |
70 |
|
71 |
Meanwhile, the objection to "desktop-*" is that it may well look about |
72 |
as relevant in a few years as "mainframe-*" would look today, due to |
73 |
mobile, wearables, and possibly ultimately injectibles. |
74 |
|
75 |
> IDK. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> I'm not committed to anything I've said here, just food for thought. |
78 |
|
79 |
Same here. My biggest concern is simply avoiding, if possible, setting |
80 |
up new categories now, only to have to redo them in 2-5 when hindsight |
81 |
makes them look stupid. It may not be possible, but to the extent it |
82 |
is... Other than that, I've no particular shed color preference, other |
83 |
than don't make it 50 characters long or something so exotic we |
84 |
have to refer to it as "the category formerly known as x11-*." =:^) |
85 |
|
86 |
-- |
87 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
88 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
89 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |