On 2 April 2014 15:05, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/02/2014 09:42 AM, Ian Malone wrote: >> I know you weren't reply to me, but this is really the point I >> wanted to make: to take advantage of Wayland it makes absolute >> sense that applications will need to use a new API. But breaking >> WMs, toolkits and applications (whether they use toolkits or X >> directly doesn't much matter if they don't work) and saying it's >> their fault for not updating isn't really a goer, a compatibility >> layer is a must. If the > > I don't think anyone has ever said that, except the baseless > accusations made in this very thread :) > > As I said, XWayland exists for this very purpose. It's not perfect, > but neither is the rest of Wayland, yet. This need is not being > ignored by anyone. > > Thanks. When I read, "there is an effort to provide a compatibility layer", my usual interpretation is it's only loosely related to the project in question, rather than a core concern. I originally missed this line in Rahul's email: > Other apps can use the compatibility layer called XWayland." But did read his reply to Lee: >> Hm, not really useful when it doesn`t work with existing WMs ... > That would be the responsibility of the WM's themselves. Which might have been better reiterating the point about the compatibility layer. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
