4 ms·

Is there some reason you cannot just set the output scale? This almost certainly already does what you want. If you're talking about X11 applications running on

Is there some reason you cannot just set the output scale? This almost certainly already does what you want. If you're talking about X11 applications running on XWayland, I think you can still change the properties there with xrandr.

KirillPanov 6y ago
I've definitely tried that and it has the wrong effect in a lot of cases. The worst is Chromium (via QtWebEngine, via qutebrowser), which seems to ignore things. No, I'm not using XWayland. I edited my comment above after you posted -- the Wayland protocol unfortunately does expose the screen size in millimeters to the client. I'm pretty sure Chromium and QT use this, which is why I need to lie to them. Another question: is there any sort of "Wayland socket proxy"? Like a stupid simple program that offers up a $WAYLAND_DISPLAY socket to a client, opens its own to a server, and then passes all results through unmodified? It would be really easy to hack a change like this into a proxy like that, but I can't seem to find one. Sort of surprising; the simplicity of the Wayland protocol makes it seem like such a thing should exist. Sort of like waypipe, but without the cross-network magic.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Qt applications are almost certainly using the output scale property, I've tried those recently. I haven't tested Chromium's wayland backend recently, but Chromium is ignoring those physical values: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/99314be8152e688bafbbf9a615536bdbb289ea87/ui/ozone/platform/wayland/host/wayland_output.cc#L39 https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/99314be8152e688baf... Maybe your chromium is not using the Wayland backend correctly? If a Wayland application is using the physical values to determine scaling, instead of the output scale, that's a bug and you probably should consider reporting it. It's probably a mistake that the physical size information is there, it's unreliable as you have seen. Edit: Rather than messing around with proxies, if you want to do a quick test to confirm, you could simply hack wlroots here to send a constant value: https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/blob/b3e76d667855c16e97a4de1658d786492fed1571/types/wlr_output.c#L25 https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/blob/b3e76d667855c16e97a4d...

KirillPanov 6y ago

I've definitely tried that and it has the wrong effect in a lot of cases. The worst is Chromium (via QtWebEngine, via qutebrowser), which seems to ignore things. No, I'm not using XWayland. I edited my comment above after you posted -- the Wayland protocol unfortunately does expose the screen size in millimeters to the client. I'm pretty sure Chromium and QT use this, which is why I need to lie to them. Another question: is there any sort of "Wayland socket proxy"? Like a stupid simple program that offers up a $WAYLAND_DISPLAY socket to a client, opens its own to a server, and then passes all results through unmodified? It would be really easy to hack a change like this into a proxy like that, but I can't seem to find one. Sort of surprising; the simplicity of the Wayland protocol makes it seem like such a thing should exist. Sort of like waypipe, but without the cross-network magic.

cycloptic 6y ago
Qt applications are almost certainly using the output scale property, I've tried those recently. I haven't tested Chromium's wayland backend recently, but Chromium is ignoring those physical values: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/99314be8152e688bafbbf9a615536bdbb289ea87/ui/ozone/platform/wayland/host/wayland_output.cc#L39 https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/99314be8152e688baf... Maybe your chromium is not using the Wayland backend correctly? If a Wayland application is using the physical values to determine scaling, instead of the output scale, that's a bug and you probably should consider reporting it. It's probably a mistake that the physical size information is there, it's unreliable as you have seen. Edit: Rather than messing around with proxies, if you want to do a quick test to confirm, you could simply hack wlroots here to send a constant value: https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/blob/b3e76d667855c16e97a4de1658d786492fed1571/types/wlr_output.c#L25 https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/blob/b3e76d667855c16e97a4d...