3 ms·
The -IMO- important part of that quote is "NOT HAVE THE TIME OR CAPACITY TO KEEP UP WITH wlroots CHANGES". X11 is backwards compatible, you do not have to "kee
by badsectoracula 10mo ago
The -IMO- important part of that quote is "NOT HAVE THE TIME OR CAPACITY TO KEEP UP WITH wlroots CHANGES".
X11 is backwards compatible, you do not have to "keep up" with its changes.
wlroots seemingly isn't. This is a significant issue when it comes to relying on most 3rd party libraries.
- mackeye 10mo ago(i worked a _little bit_ on dwl) each wlroots upgrade is a pretty small diff on the dwl source. the annoying part is, as dwl is configured with patches, every patch author has to update their patch to the new 0.x, as dwl is quite minimal, and thus has no stable api. that being said, obviously, dwm doesn't have this problem :) also, for dwl, the issue is that the initial author (not the guy that wrote that notice) is sorta mia, and he has control of the repo on codeberg, so we'd probably need to fork to be safe, and he may not want to take on project lead. (he checks every patch for merge conflicts with one another and upgrade breakages, god bless him lol)
- gf000 10mo ago> X11 is backwards compatible, you do not have to "keep up" with its changes. That's certainly one way to say "no longer developed".
- int_19h 10mo agoThat was also true back when it was actively developed though. X apps compiled a long time ago still run fine today.
- badsectoracula 10mo agoXorg is still being under development, there is another fork in development too (XLibre) and you're in the comment thread for a project about a brand new X server written from scratch. Usually things which are "no longer developed" do not have (at least) three implementations in development.
- michaelmrose 10mo agoMature projects often don't change much or quickly even when actively maintained or improved.
- account42 9mo agoWhen things work further development is not always a positive.