2 ms·
It's more nuanced than "should be able to do it" and "shouldn't be able to do it". The problem is covered in the wayland-protocols MR that the PCSX2 PR author a
by Arnavion 3y ago
It's more nuanced than "should be able to do it" and "shouldn't be able to do it". The problem is covered in the wayland-protocols MR that the PCSX2 PR author also linked to (and failed to appreciate): https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/247#note_2105263 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m...
- ryandrake 3y agoThanks for the extra context. I don't have a dog in this particular race, but I think, as a developer, I'd look at that list of excuses and just say "Why bother, I'll just target X and get on with my life." The great thing about Linux is there's usually at least one other alternative for basically anything you want to do!
- marcus0x62 3y agoI don’t think anyone “failed to appreciate” that thread. The core reasoning on the part of the Wayland devs was absurd beyond belief. “Applications and users decide what's actually optional - if 10 applications work on all the popular compositors but don't work in one with a novel approach to window management, then that compositor is considered broken, not the applications.” So, the obvious solution to the problem is, apparently, to have no solution and have everything broken. Genius.