vasilito
f31522130f
Build system (5 gaps hardened): - COOKBOOK_OFFLINE defaults to true (fork-mode) - normalize_patch handles diff -ruN format - New 'repo validate-patches' command (25/25 relibc patches) - 14 patched Qt/Wayland/display recipes added to protected list - relibc archive regenerated with current patch chain Boot fixes (fixable): - Full ISO EFI partition: 16 MiB → 1 MiB (matches mini, BIOS hardcoded 2 MiB offset) - D-Bus system bus: absolute /usr/bin/dbus-daemon path (was skipped) - redbear-sessiond: absolute /usr/bin/redbear-sessiond path (was skipped) - daemon framework: silenced spurious INIT_NOTIFY warnings for oneshot_async services (P0-daemon-silence-init-notify.patch) - udev-shim: demoted INIT_NOTIFY warning to INFO (expected for oneshot_async) - relibc: comprehensive named semaphores (sem_open/close/unlink) replacing upstream todo!() stubs - greeterd: Wayland socket timeout 15s → 30s (compositor DRM wait) - greeter-ui: built and linked (header guard unification, sem_compat stubs removed) - mc: un-ignored in both configs, fixed glib/libiconv/pcre2 transitive deps - greeter config: removed stale keymapd dependency from display/greeter services - prefix toolchain: relibc headers synced, _RELIBC_STDLIB_H guard unified Unfixable (diagnosed, upstream): - i2c-hidd: abort on no-I2C-hardware (QEMU) — process::exit → relibc abort - kded6/greeter-ui: page fault 0x8 — Qt library null deref - Thread panics fd != -1 — Rust std library on Redox - DHCP timeout / eth0 MAC — QEMU user-mode networking - hwrngd/thermald — no hardware RNG/thermal in VM - live preload allocation — BIOS memory fragmentation, continues on demand
116 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
116 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
# wayland-protocols governance
|
|
|
|
This document governs the maintenance of wayland-protocols and serves to outline
|
|
the broader process for standardization of protocol extensions in the Wayland
|
|
ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
## 1. Membership
|
|
|
|
Membership in wayland-protocols is offered to stakeholders in the Wayland
|
|
ecosystem who have an interest in participating in protocol extension
|
|
standardization.
|
|
|
|
### 1.1. Membership requirements
|
|
|
|
1. Membership is extended to projects, rather than individuals.
|
|
2. Members represent general-purpose projects with a stake in multiple Wayland
|
|
protocols (e.g. compositors, GUI toolkits, etc), rather than special-purpose
|
|
applications with a stake in only one or two.
|
|
3. Each project must provide one or two named individuals as points-of-contact
|
|
for that project who can be reached to discuss protocol-related matters.
|
|
4. During a vote, if two points-of-contact for the same member disagree, the
|
|
member's vote is considered blank.
|
|
|
|
### 1.2. Becoming a member
|
|
|
|
1. New members who meet the criteria outlined in 1.1 are established by
|
|
invitation from an existing member. Projects hoping to join should reach out
|
|
to an existing member asking for this invitation.
|
|
2. New members shall write to the wayland-devel mailing list stating their
|
|
intention of joining and their sponsor.
|
|
3. The sponsor shall respond acknowledging their sponsorship of the membership.
|
|
4. A 14 day discussion period for comments from wayland-protocols members will
|
|
be held.
|
|
5. At the conclusion of the discussion period, the new membership is established
|
|
unless their application was NACKed by a 1/2 majority of all existing members.
|
|
|
|
### 1.3. Ceasing membership
|
|
|
|
1. A member may step down by writing their intention to do so to the
|
|
wayland-devel mailing list.
|
|
2. A removal vote may be called for by an existing member by posting to the
|
|
wayland-devel mailing list. This begins a 14 day voting & discussion
|
|
period.
|
|
3. At the conclusion of the voting period, the member is removed if the votes
|
|
total 2/3rds of all current members.
|
|
4. Removed members are not eligible to apply for membership again for a period
|
|
of 1 year.
|
|
5. Following a failed vote, the member who called for the vote cannot
|
|
call for a re-vote or propose any other removal for 90 days.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Protocols
|
|
|
|
### 2.1. Protocol namespaces
|
|
|
|
1. Namespaces are implemented in practice by prefixing each interface name in a
|
|
protocol definition (XML) with the namespace name, and an underscore (e.g.
|
|
"xdg_wm_base").
|
|
2. Protocols in a namespace may optionally use the namespace followed by a dash
|
|
in the name (e.g. "xdg-shell").
|
|
3. The "xdg" namespace is established for protocols letting clients
|
|
configure their surfaces as "windows", allowing clients to affect how they
|
|
are managed.
|
|
4. The "wp" namespace is established for protocols generally useful to Wayland
|
|
implementations (i.e. "plumbing" protocols).
|
|
5. The "ext" namespace is established as a general catch-all for protocols that
|
|
fit into no other namespace.
|
|
|
|
### 2.2. Protocol inclusion requirements
|
|
|
|
1. All protocols found in the "xdg" and "wp" namespaces at the time of writing
|
|
are grandfathered into their respective namespace without further discussion.
|
|
2. Protocols in the "xdg" and "wp" namespace are eligible for inclusion only if
|
|
ACKed by at least 3 members.
|
|
3. Protocols in the "xdg" and "wp" namespace are ineligible for inclusion if
|
|
NACKed by any member.
|
|
4. Protocols in the "xdg" and "wp" namespaces must have at least 3 open-source
|
|
implementations (either 1 client + 2 servers, or 2 clients + 1 server) to be
|
|
eligible for inclusion.
|
|
5. Protocols in the "ext" namespace are eligible for inclusion only if ACKed by
|
|
at least 2 members.
|
|
6. Protocols in the "ext" namespace must have at least one open-source client &
|
|
one open-source server implementation to be eligible for inclusion.
|
|
7. "Open-source" is defined as distributed with an Open Source Initiative
|
|
approved license.
|
|
8. All protocols are eligible for inclusion only if formally reviewed in-depth
|
|
by at least one member's point-of-contact different from the author.
|
|
|
|
### 2.3. Introducing new protocols
|
|
|
|
1. A new protocol may be proposed by submitting a merge request to the
|
|
wayland-protocols Gitlab repository.
|
|
2. Protocol proposal posts must include justification for their inclusion in
|
|
their namespace per the requirements outlined in section 2.2.
|
|
3. An indefinite discussion period for comments from wayland-protocols members
|
|
will be held, with a minimum duration of 30 days. Protocols which require a
|
|
certain level of implementation status, ACKs from members, and so on, should
|
|
use this time to acquire them.
|
|
4. When the proposed protocol meets all requirements for inclusion per section
|
|
2.2, and the minimum discussion period has elapsed, the sponsoring member may
|
|
merge their changes into the wayland-protocol repository.
|
|
5. Amendments to existing protocols may be proposed by the same process, with
|
|
no minimum discussion period.
|
|
6. Declaring a protocol stable may be proposed by the same process, with the
|
|
regular 30 day minimum discussion period.
|
|
|
|
## 3. Amending this document
|
|
|
|
1. An amendment to this document may be proposed any member by
|
|
submitting a merge request on Gitlab.
|
|
2. A 30 day discussion period for comments from wayland-protocols members will
|
|
be held.
|
|
3. At the conclusion of the discussion period, an amendment will become
|
|
effective if it's ACKed by at least 2/3rds of all wayland-protocols members,
|
|
and NACKed by none. The sponsoring member may merge their change to the
|
|
wayland-protocols repository at this point.
|