nixos/sway: add wlr portal back with mkDefault

[JohnRTitor]

Regression from #348792
Fixes #352188.

@teutat3s please confirm that idle inhibit issues do not reoccur with this.
Pinging @midirhee12 for testing.

[JohnRTitor]

@ofborg test sway

[SuperSandro2000]

Do we want to use mkDefault here? If people specify a value, then the list of wlr and gtk is dropped instead of added.

[SuperSandro2000]

Suggested change

	default = lib.mkDefault [ "wlr" "gtk" ];
	default = [ "wlr" "gtk" ];

[JohnRTitor]

I keep forgetting that string and lists behave differently. And I kind of agree.

[teutat3s]

Thank you for creating this PR. I'd like to try to understand the problem in the linked issue before reverting things.

[fpletz]

I tested #348792 with the wlr and gtk portals in default but unfortunately just noticed now that the PR removed that since my local configuration was overriding it. I also think that we don't need mkDefault here, though.

[teutat3s]

Because of the bug in x-d-p-gtk mentioned in #348792, re-introducing wlr as default will break Firefox idle inhibit again. What I'd like to understand is: Does removing wlr from default break anything for anyone?

[teutat3s]

Suggested change

	default = lib.mkDefault [ "wlr" "gtk" ];
	default = [ "gtk" ];

[JohnRTitor]

re-introducing wlr as default will break Firefox idle inhibit again.

I wonder why though, doesn't gtk come before wlr, it should have precedency, unless I am missing something.

Does removing wlr from default break anything for anyone?

@midirhee12

[teutat3s]

@JohnRTitor The original PR has the context you are looking for. There is a linked bug in x-d-p-gtk and a reddit post. TL;DR

Firefox supports the Wayland inhibit protocol, but it attempts to use the DBus interfaces first. However, the gtk portal has an issue where it returns success even though the wlr portal/sway doesn't have an implementation for the inhibit method,

[midirhee12]

Why was this closed and deleted?

[midirhee12]

@JohnRTitor This still needed to be merged. So this was unnecessarily closed.

[JohnRTitor]

I was just cleaning my branches. And then there's no response to #352193 (comment)

[midirhee12]

@JohnRTitor Yes, it does. Hence why I made #352188

[midirhee12]

@JohnRTitor Is it possible that you can bring back the branch? Deleting branches for open PRs is usually not a good idea.