<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">I’m no expert on Wayland but I found this discussion on a Darwin port a while back: <a href="https://mastodon.technology/@bugaevc/101603518023241841">https://mastodon.technology/@bugaevc/101603518023241841</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">G.</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">Le 15 oct. 2019 à 13:31, Jack Howarth <howarth.at.macports@gmail.com> a écrit :<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"> I asked Jeremy about potential Wayland support for macOS awhile back and his response was that it was pointless duplication as Xquartz already achieved the same goals.<div> Jack</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 4:40 AM Chris Jones <<a href="mailto:jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk">jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
On 15/10/2019 9:20 am, René J. V. Bertin wrote:<br>
> Chris Jones wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Sorry, missed your reply.<br>
> <br>
> I guess what I'm asking is: the legacy-support package/project must have come<br>
> into existence because of an interest in running code that requires functions<br>
> not present in all Mac OS versions - does that interest cover Wayland too?<br>
<br>
I am not disputing the idea that adding support for Wayland to MacPorts <br>
would be a good idea. It would be. Just that legacy-support is not the <br>
place to add it. It is there to add as required to older OSes low level, <br>
small, system library methods added in newer OSes. e.g. clock_gettime <br>
that only exists in 10.12+. It is not the place to add an entirely new <br>
feature set such as Wayland, to all OSes (no macOS release has wayland <br>
support). Wayland support should be added in its own dedicated set of <br>
ports, not shoe horned into one it has no place being in.<br>
<br>
cheers Chris<br>
<br>
> <br>
> I think that at some point we'll start seeing Wayland-only versions of<br>
> applications from the Gnome universe.<br>
> <br>
> R.<br>
>><br>
>> Not really sure what you are asking. legacy-support package is blind to<br>
>> what ports might be using it. It just supplies functionality missing on<br>
>> older OSes. If some hypothetical future wayland port needs these<br>
>> functions, it presumably could use the PG in the same way as everything<br>
>> else does.<br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>> On 27/09/2019 9:32 am, René J.V. Bertin wrote:<br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> A quick question to the legacy-support devs: do you have any interest in<br>
>>> whether or not these support functions (plus whatever else is needed and<br>
>>> doable) could help building Wayland for Mac?<br>
>>><br>
>>> FWIW, I brought up the idea of running Wayland with Jeremy H. back when he<br>
>>> was still maintaining XQuartz, and he was very positive about the idea<br>
>>> (including how it could improve X11 support - there's some sort of X11 server<br>
>>> "backend" for Wayland).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Proper Wayland support on Mac should also provide a more modern (and better<br>
>>> integrated) platform for traditional Unix apps, possibly even for KDE/KF5 as<br>
>>> an eco-system without need for patching Qt.<br>
>>><br>
>>> R.<br>
>>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>