Re: Using VLC 4.0.0 on WSL2 Ubuntu 25.04 with wayland
Jean-Yves Baudy <[email protected]> Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:43:14 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.video.videolan.vlc.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CA+SazbDkWu_=MC625i0djpcCVsnq9QkDUM2iC4LxP2HgK9VE1A@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi, I had no idea such a debate would arise within the VLC developer community. For me, a basic principle, having been a developer myself for many years, is to respect the work of others. A simple comment shouldn't lead to such an exchange. If this continues, I'll probably unsubscribe from my own post!!! VLC works very well in my WSL2 environment if I run it on a Weston instance. Or on a native Ubuntu. And, I can survive with my modification for personal use. With my post, I just wanted to draw your attention in case you have a constructive idea. Regards Le lun. 23 juin 2025 à 09:01, Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Le 22 juin 2025 18:59:43 GMT+03:00, "Fatih Uzunoğlu" <[email protected]> > a écrit : > >> WTH are you on about?! You don't get to choose what display module is > used. If you provide a Wayland type surface you have to follow the general > conventions and the specific conventions for the Wayland type. > > > >If the display module is using viewporter, it should also take care of > the fractional scale (as that is the only way to support it as per the > fractional scale protocol), which probably means a new entry in the window > structure so that the window provider can forward the desired scale instead > of handling it itself. > > You're gaslighting us. The SHM module was already using the viewporter in > 3.0, before any of those bugs were introduced in the Qt interface. What > really happened here is whoever wrote the code didn't care to test it with > the reference display. That should be software development flame testing > 101, so quite troubling. Alternatively they didn't have viewport support in > their display server (in which case, it's very sketchy to even attempt to > use it). > > > Note that some may argue that it should be the responsibility of the > window provider. > > I don't care about idiotic opinions. That can't work since the window > provider has, by design, no info on the size and aspect of the video being > shown in it, and thus can't possibly calculate a scale. > > And it goes beyond that. Each display module is free to use whatever fits > it for rendering. A provider cannot use *any* rendering service on the > surface unless it can't conflict with *any* potential use by *any* display. > > >Qt interface did not "break a display module", > > If triggering a crash in preexisting working merged code is not breaking > it, then I don't know what is. > > > Iis only for window embedding case, and the interface can definitely > have some additional requirements there when necessary. > > No, you just made that up. Can you even point to a precedent for that bold > misleading claim? > _______________________________________________ > vlc-devel mailing list > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options: > https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel > _______________________________________________ vlc-devel mailing list To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options: https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel