[PATCH] wayland-protocols: Add content-protection protocol

Nautiyal, Ankit K ankit.k.nautiyal at intel.com
Mon Feb 4 06:19:06 UTC 2019

On 2/1/2019 6:15 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> 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:
>> _https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/merge_requests/48_
>> 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?
> Hi Ankit,
> 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
> do.
> 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.

Thanks Pekka for the directions. I will take care of the name space in 
the weston merge request.
When we all agree to an acceptable design, we can debate, whether the 
protocol should be part of wayland-protocols or not.


> Thanks,
> pq
>> 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

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list