[PATCH] wayland-protocols: Add content-protection protocol
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 12:45:48 UTC 2019
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 22:39:39 +0530
"Nautiyal, Ankit K" <ankit.k.nautiyal at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon Ser,
> Thanks for your comments.
> I am also not sure about whether the protocol belongs here or not, and
> that's why I had first proposed the same in weston, along with the
> implementation and the client application -
> Merge request:
> But I do think, its a good point to start the discussion.
> Pekka, Daniel, I think we had some discussion about it in IRC as to
> wayland-extension. Does it make sense to have this in wayland-protocols?
obviously there debating about the scope of wayland-protocols, and I
think it is getting to a level where each camp just denies everyone
else's proposal. We need to have a serious discussion of the scope,
remove the extensions that don't belong there, and include those that
But this thread is not for that discussion.
It is always possible to carry a protocol extension in Weston
repository and install it from there, and if it seems appropriate,
promote it to wayland-protocols at any time. The only catch here is
that extensions in Weston need to be namespaced to weston, and the names
will change when moved to wayland-protocols.
Such interface name changes are to be expected even in
wayland-protocols, because they are part of the documented process of
how extensions evolve in wayland-protocols. The final name change
happens when an extension is declared stable, even if there are no
other changes to it.
IOW, there is nothing here that would stop you or Scott from
co-operating and developing the extension and landing it in Weston.
Putting it in Weston saves the politics for later.
> On 1/28/2019 4:53 PM, Simon Ser wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Thanks for your patch. However, I don't think it belongs to wayland-protocols.
> > wayland-protocols isn't designed for all common Wayland protocols. For instance,
> > the IVI shell isn't there, and has a similar use-case (although not limited to
> > closed systems). Also some other protocols like layer-shell have been rejected.
> > I think a Weston patch in protocols/ would be better suited. This would allow
> > protocol consumers to share the protocol while not including it in a repository
> > where it won't be used because a large majority of wayland-protocols users don't
> > have closed systems.
> > That said, wayland-protocols' scope is ill-defined, so it's not like it's easy
> > to decide whether it belongs here or not.
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Simon Ser
> > https://emersion.fr
> > _______________________________________________
> > wayland-devel mailing list
> > wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the wayland-devel