Re: [WIP] weston 6.0.0 sandbox

[Stephane Desneux <stephane.desneux@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Daniel for the clarification.

---
Stephane Desneux - CTO - IoT.bzh
stephane.desneux@xxxxxxx - www.iot.bzh

On 22/05/2019 16:28, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi Stephane,
> 
> On Wed, 2019-05-22 at 09:45 +0200, Stephane Desneux wrote:
>> There are 2 options here:
>>
>> * have weston6 for HH
>> * have weston6 for master (for further development)
>>
>> Both can be achieved (or not depending on discussion :))
> 
> As Jan-Simon says, it would be pretty painful having a split world
> between CES and post-CES development. Given the magnitude of the
> transition, we want to be able to move sooner rather than later.
> 
>> BTW, what are the core reasons to switch to weston6?
> 
> We have been doing heavy rework of Weston's API upstream after Weston
> 5.0. It's not really possible to define a compositor architecture like
> the one we have agreed on before Weston 6.0: it would require an AGL-
> specific fork of Weston which would then have to be reconciled later
> on. Forking Weston completely, seems more difficult than just switching
> to a different upstream version.
> 
> The changes included a rework of output configuration, exposing the
> Weston configuration parser as external API, and many more, which allow
> AGL to define its own window management as a user of libweston. It also
> adds an extensible debug/tracing infrastructure.
> 
> The changes between Weston 5.0 and 6.0 are quite minimal for
> backends/BSPs. Whilst 4.0 to 5.0 was a huge change in the backends, 5.0
> to 6.0 is much smaller and so should be much easier to port.
> 
> Given the above, we decided that the best thing to do was to update to
> 6.0 early, to avoid diverging between Halibut, the CES demo
> (Halibut++), and Icefish.
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> 
_______________________________________________
automotive-discussions mailing list
automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions