I've managed to get it working Wayland w/ XWayland and Weston for testing. There's a screenshot on my last post in the thread of xeyes running on a Weston shell.

I need to revert the snapshot on my VM and go back through the process one more time to see if I missed anything in my notes. I'll post the process here on a LQ blog when finished.

Todo: GTK3 + Gnome3 + Mutter (sans systemd)

Very interesting. No systemd is great .

Now that I'm looking, I find it odd that BLFS explains how to build only part of Wayland and no compositors for it. Perhaps it's a work in progress for them.

Anyway the goal is Wayland + GTK3 + Mutter + a lightweight Desktop. Finally, using XWayland for running X11 apps natively under Wayland. I'll be getting around systemd integration (logind req.) by using the API compatible elogind package.

Edit: Wanted to use budgie desktop but it requires a higher version of mutter than what's available for Wayland. I was misled by the article that linked it. Honks me off, don't spend all that time talking about Wayland and then link something that's not compatible.

Perhaps mate with GTK3 is an option?
Since gtk 3.22 will be the last gtk3 release, I guess it's a safe bet to go gtk3.

It (Mate) doesn't appear to currently support Wayland. Pantheon (Elementary OS) might, but I'm not sure I like that any better than the default Gnome/Mutter Wayland combination.

https://youtu.be/w1R5uBPnOpg?t=11m26s

But, I may look at some others.

Edit: Considering that Budgie is new the only reason I can find that Wayland support is behind is due to their posted problems with vala code. Good god, if you're going to move away from C, at least use something decent.

so let me see if I got this right. You're working on putting together, wayland x11-interface with GTK3 & MUTTeR (That I have no idea/experience with that one) to work on a system that does not use SYStemD as an init?

sooo...... You're polling around asking others, would you use it, to see it it'd be a waste of your time doing this, while trying to figure out what to curtail it to, so it can have a platform to operate off of?

yes,

my disto does not use systemD, it supports Wayland x11, it is even in the repo's. it is a fast and simple to maintain system. (A learning curve is always going to be there for things ones never used).

I haven't entirely figured out how to completely use it. I got it running once, (i think) but fell into the, so what software runs on it?

I myself. Not spending a LOT of time on it to figure it out. I just waiting for wayland to just be like x11, it installs with the distro and just works.


look at Void Linux, give it a shot, it is build from the ground up rolling release distro, with its own init system.

You misunderstand. Look at the forum you're posting on, which is Linux From Scratch. I asked, not to find out if it's worth my time to do a Wayland build, but to find out if it's worth my time it takes to post the instructions when I am finished. People here do their own building and might want to give it a try too.

If you think we are crazy, I suggest you go look at another forum where they write entire operating systems from bootloader to GUI, if only as a hobby. http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php...087&start=2670

The furthest I have got is wayland without X at all, but from there on found it difficult to proceed, so I will keep an eye on this. I was hoping to steer clear of X
I suppose the only way I can go is QT

is that a freudian slip? Because nothing I wrote came close to even hinting of someones mental state whatsoever.

If this works as I expect then you will be able to use GTK3/Gnome. If you intend to use XWayland for compatibility with older X11 programs you cannot avoid building some of the x.org stack. The upside is that everything will be running on a Wayland compositor and shouldn't require a running xserver.

Edit: How much of X11 has to be built is what I am working on now. I'm building on a vm and using snapshots so I can rollback easily if I make a mistake.

That was said tongue-in-cheek. Don't take it seriously. Besides, if I am crazy, and I guess I could be... Why worry about it? If so, it hasn't hindered me so far.

Like I said above, how much of X11 needs to be built is tricky. That process is also requiring me to hold off common necessities (GLib, DBus, etc.) until the hard dependency appears during a configure fail. I'm doing it this way so I hopefully won't have to go back and rebuild to many packages.

As an example, I just ran configure on D-Bus-1.10.10 and noticed...

Will systemd support change if it see's elogind header files? Will X11 code change after building the minimum required X11 stack needed to build XWayland. At this point I don't know, so I hold off on building D-Bus until a configure actually bombs out because D-Bus is absent.

This is coming along, but some parts are hairy... My mesa build:

That's setup to let me use 3d acceleration in VMware. Depends on a user-mode-setting driver that is really just a wrapper for KMS too.

The good thing is that I've yet too see a test fail. Hopefully, when I drop all those XWayand options (--enable-xwayland --disable-xorg, etc.) on XOrg Server I won't end up with a ton of red on check log.

Scratch that bit I wrote about needing a usermode driver. (xf86-video-vmware) What I missed is that libdrm knows how to use virtual 3D acceleration by talking to the kernel DRI if you've selected one. (DRM WMware driver, QXL Virtual GPU, Bochs Drm support, etc.)

The xf86-video-vmware is only needed for running xorg side-by-side with wayland.

Grrr... was building Weston for testing and...

configure: error: weston-launch requires pam

When are developers going to get it through their numb skulls that PAM isn't needed everywhere.

I Agree with your assesment of our mental health ... I coded a complete desktop from scratch ... Cuckoo!