Re: MPS and pgtk

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Arsen Arsenović <arsen@aarsen.me>
> Cc: Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>,  gerd.moellmann@gmail.com,
>   avityazev@disroot.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,  eller.helmut@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:19:28 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> So, IMHO the pgtk support may be prioritized as it is the only way we
> >> support Wayland natively.
> >> 
> >> Not sure if there are plans or alternatives under consideration to
> >> change/improve pgtk, but if igc becomes an issue for it... we may
> >> rethink if we really want it looking to the future?
> >
> > Given the sorry state of Wayland and GTK support of what Emacs needs,
> > from my POV the PGTK configuration becomes less and less relevant to
> > Emacs.  I'm aware that the world moves in the opposite direction, but
> > unless we get some help from Wayland/GTK developers, or,
> > alternatively, find ways to work around those limitations (unlikely,
> > IMNSHO), there's nothing we can do about this, and nothing we could
> > gain by "rethinking".  If you care about these platforms, start
> > lobbying the respective development teams to cater more for Emacs and
> > its needs.
> 
> I am curious about what these are, as I am quite interested in the
> further development of Wayland.

Search our etc/PROBLEMS file for "pgtk", and you will see many of
them.  Others are in the various bug reports, so searching debbugs for
PGTK might uncover them.

> WRT GTK, I've considered Qt (but have not seen yet whether it has the
> same restrictions) and multiprocessing the UI, but have not had time to
> look into those options yet.  Has anyone lese considered Qt?

Yes, it's in the archives.  For starters, it's a C++ toolkit, but
AFAIR there were other problems as well.