OP clearly posted bug link, where is seen, how KeaPassXC report was closed, because bug is in XFCE Wayland, XFCE Wayland report was closed, because bug is in Leap 16 and now, here it will be closed, because Leap 16 has Xfce in experimental state, so Leap broken state is a feature not a bug.
OP asks, if he should switch to Tumbleweed, Slowroll or third party repo for newer Xfce on Leap.
What I tried to talk about:
Is it something that (still) needs to be fixed? (I donât know the details aboutâŚ) â Or is it maybe already resolved â e.g. by labwc 0.9.6 instead of 0.8.1 which is used by TW per standard and could be used by Leap with the related repo. It could also be some package outdated in Leap 16.0 but very recent in TW or the related dev repo for Leap⌠I just donât know.
Now, before I go and try all potential possibilities (like install and try TW, or keep using Leap 16.0 BUT with several dev repos) I did dare to ask the community. Maybe someone has experienced this explicitly in between. And if it is really not resolved by such measures (TW or Leap 16.0 WITH dev repos) then it could be delegated to the Xfce or labwc (or maybe even KeePassXC) to try to fix it (because it seems it actually needs fixing).
When following the issue URL (please, see above), a maintainer is guessing:
Then it is most likely a labwc issue, and it was likely solved between 0.8.1 and 0.9.7. Iâm closing this, please reopen if you can still reproduce it with labwc 0.9.7.
But how should I personally know on Leap 16.0 â when not temporarily, at least, using dev repos or maybe trying TW.
Of course, I could do more. But:
I have limited skills (like coding or even running VMs)
I am not a bug hunter
moreover not a bug fixer
just a reporter: I said what I experienced⌠And I havenât known what it is due to â but maybe community knows by chance.
But (look at my other posting, just recently) maybe itâs already resolved by recent packages. TW has them, Leap 16.0 could have them⌠with dev repos, at least.
I do know what Leap is on the one hand â and what TW/SR is on the other hand. And what are differences, advantages/dsiadvantages. And that there are dev repos that you could use with Leap (like for having more recent packages, like most relevant in this case), but that is said not to be standard and not recommended generally to do so.
But I experience issues like this on Leap every now and then. And therefore, I ask the community:
is it likely already be resolved by some measures?
explicitly: is it worth considering using TW/SR â instead of Leap?
explicitly: is it worth considering staying with Leap â but daring to use dev repos?
implicitly: if itâs resolved by some measures (labwc 0.9.6 instead of 0.8.1), could Leap 16.1 introduce updates like this (and maybe some more) rather than maybe staying on the old revision (which is thinkable) â 0.8.1 was already âoldâ somehow for Leap 16.0⌠now for Leap 16.1 it could be nice to update this (and maybe some more) than leaving it by whatever reason
If I was just complaining (I dare to say I am not â I am asking for info and advise) I could say:
with Leap I potentially have a âbroken state systemâ due to old packages
with TW I potentially have a âbroken state systemâ due to very recent packages
@C7NhtpnK I am a xfce user and I am using tumbleweed so Iâm bias to tumbleweed.
Broken state in tumbleweed depends sometimes with the user. Except for the occasional nvidia driver problem I hadnât had any issues. Probably because my applications are limited, mostly for graphics and multimedia.
But, somehow related to your statement (from another thread):
In this some of this way I said:
To be more explicit and precise:
some people say: use Leap â only! Just this one is stable and it needs just a little bit of keeping care (due to very rare and very stable updates).
some other people say: use TW â only! It such a great experience, I have never had issues! And due to the most recent packages available you never have âa broken state system due to out-of-date packagesâ (that cause issues which could actually be resolved by the recent packages which are available somehow).
You can do it wrong the one way â you can do in wrong the other way. But I personally want to make a (somehow final) decision and USE my system â instead of spending time on maintenance, bug hunting, bug fixing, experimenting with lots of VMs and suchâŚ
Of course, you cannot have the both: most stable AND most recent (at the same time). I know that⌠But I would like to have something like rather most stable AND rather most recent. (Like my issues as stated in the beginning could likely be resolved when Leap (more likely to be said stable â instead of TW) would have some more recent packages (like TW that is likely to be said very up-to-date) by introducing some labwc 0.9.6 (and such) in Leap 16.1 â instead of leaving it (due to whatever reason).
So, in this way, I have been thinking about SR sometimes as a compromise of Leap on the one hand and TW on the other hand. â But I somehow have the feeling that SR has some of the advantages of both and some of the disadvantages of both at the same time (some issues due to very recent packages WITH bugs (look at some threads), some packages not included compared to TW or no update process due to whatever reason on SR: I have seen some packages that build for TW but not for SRâŚ)
The Xfce dev on the gitlab issue states itâs most likely a labwc issue and thatâs why itâs closed. He didnât refer to Leap.
Furthermore it might (as mentioned by C7NhtpnK) already be solved in a new labwc version.
I guess then you still have to make your mind about what you like. Why not go for Slowroll? It seems it has been created for what you are leaning to.
If you want to have a long running stable system, independend on the underlying distribution, I wouldnât install an experimental combination of Xfce and labwc⌠As I follow the Xfce wayland transition quite a bit: labwc will anyways be dropped. They have a dev working on a completely new wayland compositor (xfwl4: https://wiki.xfce.org/xfwl4_faq). The first dev-version is expected mid of this year.
So if you donât want to tinker with your system too much and you like Xfce: Why not go for X11? If you want Wayland: Why not go for Plasma or Gnome?
Xfce in combination with labwc is clearly marked as experimental. There wonât be many users with this set up to help you fix it.
The Xfce dev closing the issue on gitlab is quite relatable, donât you think? You have a user with an experimental setup then when asking him to test a couple things like a different compositor or a newer version of the currently used compositor he refuses to do so. The devs canât rebuild everybodys setup to find if it is a Xfce problem or a compositor problem.
Er, well. I posted the issue experienced. I asked for help. Maybe for a fix if necessary. But I havenât asked those questions about testing. He/her asked me â which I denied because of a lack of capabilities. I am not willing to do this in my one and only system of daily use. And sadly, I donât run VMs because I donât know how to do so. If itâs doing nobody then, then itâs just the case. If âtheyâ donât have the capabilities relating time, energy and such, I donât have the capabilities relating being an IT Pro â I am a user.
X11 will be deprecated, obsolete, legacy soon, any way! Thereâs no future with that. Itâs âbetterâ to accept that Wayland is the current standard.
Well. I really donât like them either. Itâs a hard word: I âhateâ them. The only positive thing about: I cerish and value GNOME and GDM for offering the most proper and advanced Wayland support (which is said so). So, I like it for some technical reason. But I really donât like the UI/UX of GNOME, in no way. And similarily, I donât like KDE for the overload of config settings and possibilities. For a technical detail, I like Xfce (and back then until Leap 15.6 especially Xfce on X11 with LightDM) for the small âimpactâ (dependencies and such⌠â there is quite more load of GNOME (and GDM) or KDE (and SDDM)).
âŚbut not yet with xfce apparently. In my view there is nothing bad in using X11 with xfce as long as it works; it will take some time for xfce to be reliable with wayland and some time for X11 to degrade to a point where it is no more functional.
Long time Gnome user here. I began testing Gnome on Wayland perhaps two years ago but used X for everyday work. It was only with Gnome 48 (one year ago?) that I switched to Wayland as a main driver, but still reverting to Gnome-session-X11 to do some work (where color counts, for instance).
Meanwhile most apps adapted to wayland and finally with Gnome 50 there is some basic color management on wayland, Gnome completely ditched X11 support and a couple of weeks ago I completely uninstalled everything X related from my daily driver.
BTW, without the X burden Gnome flies now, but it took them some two years to have a decent lineup for serious work.
So, want wayland? Use Gnome, the only DM currently with decent performance on Wayland.
Love Xfce? Use it with X11 as long as it works and let them catch up, there is nothing really exciting in Wayland that cannot be accomplished with X11, unless you develop apps and need to future-proof them.
I would not call it âbroken system stateâ level⌠For my daily use, quite much is working properly! Thanks to people! So far, I have mainly experienced these issues personally (there may be others/more! â but so far I am not affected by potential issues being around than these):
this issue mentioned in this thread (âreporting of window stateâ): may likely be resolved by using labwc 0.9.6 (instead of official 0.8.1) /
/