Difference between revisions of "Application talk:X"

From WebOS Internals
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 44: Line 44:
 
Each window manager would be an application.  One thought is it might not make sense to have a wm-bin package--does that really make sense?
 
Each window manager would be an application.  One thought is it might not make sense to have a wm-bin package--does that really make sense?
 
But maybe it should for consistency's sake.
 
But maybe it should for consistency's sake.
 +
 +
Anyway, this WM would have an icon, and would automatically be populated with all the installed applications (all the app-bin packages installed). This means one use case is installing a nice wm and a bunch of app-bins (or a metapackage containing a bunch of apps), and the pre's launcher would only have one icon to launch the whole experience.
  
 
==Meta packages==
 
==Meta packages==
 
We could introduce meta-packages for commonly installed applications/etc to save people from having to install a large number of applications manually, and just say "give me a good experience and a button to launch it!".
 
We could introduce meta-packages for commonly installed applications/etc to save people from having to install a large number of applications manually, and just say "give me a good experience and a button to launch it!".

Revision as of 20:05, 17 March 2010

Would you like me to list a step-by-step guide here to using X on the pre via debian chroot and sdlvnc? Or were you planning on getting X running via sdl directly? ~zonyl

Zonyl: I had different plans than a sdlvnc+debian chroot+Xvfb. More integration with webOS (see below), integration into Preware (not reliant on apt-get in the chroot), native apps (potentially faster), and perhaps a more accelerated server (lots of opportunities to make this better, including potentially glx but we'll see :D). Thanks for offering to write it up though, that is useful and should probably go up somewhere.


Packaging Proposal

I don't know the best place to put this, but I want this to be publicish so throwing it here.

xlib

Contains all the X libraries that are used. Iff the library is listed http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/src/lib/ it's included.

Core

xorg-server

Contains the X server, no front-end. Depends on xlib

x11

Just a launcher script for xorg-server. Depends on xorg-server

Applications

Each application could be separated into two packages. This allows the user to have the icons they want in the launcher, but also allows them to install many applications without cluttering the pre's launcher. A good example here is 'xterm'.

app-bin

Contains the binary for the application "app", and app-specific libraries, resources, etc. No icon/front-end. Depends on xlib

app-launcher

Launcher script for the app "app". Spawns additional X server for each application. Depends on xorg-server, and app-bin.

Libraries

Each additional library not part of 'xlib' (gtk, etc) can go into it's own package, with no front-end.

Window Managers

Each window manager would be an application. One thought is it might not make sense to have a wm-bin package--does that really make sense? But maybe it should for consistency's sake.

Anyway, this WM would have an icon, and would automatically be populated with all the installed applications (all the app-bin packages installed). This means one use case is installing a nice wm and a bunch of app-bins (or a metapackage containing a bunch of apps), and the pre's launcher would only have one icon to launch the whole experience.

Meta packages

We could introduce meta-packages for commonly installed applications/etc to save people from having to install a large number of applications manually, and just say "give me a good experience and a button to launch it!".