In practice, Linux distributions have been the system integrators that pull these things together and handle the gaps. That's really the value of a distribution - pulls a set of components together in a way that works.

In this case, I use Fedora (Gnome). Most things are on Wayland and it works pretty well.

> But the normal approach...

Says who? You're getting software for free, from someone who is not beholden to you for anything. Either you accept it as it is, or you fix it; that's the nature of open source. Whining about it on the internet is rude and disrespectful.

If you can't be bothered, and want all this stuff included, or at the very least recommended or installed automatically on the side, switch to something else that does that for you.

The alternative to taking a piece of open source as-is isn't "complain to the maintainer until they fulfill your wishes". That kind of thing is why open source maintainers burn out. You are not entitled to anything from them; the alternative is that the software doesn't exist at all.

It is not the normal approach for a project author to write a whole ecosystem.

If you want the Desktop Environment experience, pick a Desktop Environment. This can be based on sway (e.g. Manjaro spins), but sway is not more a desktop Environment than the Linux kernel is an operating system.

I don't see how being "just a compositor" has to do anything to "has to bundle complementing utilities", without mucking the whole thing and turning it into a desktop environment.

Thought I agree that for most people, a desktop environment, "everything integrated, just change this specific thing" instead of "let me just DIY my entire environment from those separated parts" makes more sense.