Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 April 2013 02:24, Lars Engels  wrote:

> Sure, but the rc.conf solution is the lower hanging fruit. :)

No it's not; think about it. You need to have a few modules loaded in
order to boot.

* usb
* maybe atkbd
* da/scsi
* ata / scsi block device drivers
* perhaps network
* perhaps vga/vesa
* perhaps acpi_* for your laptop device

.. those can't be in rc.conf .




Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Lars Engels]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:57:50AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 25 April 2013 01:38, Lars Engels  wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:46AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >> .. or we could just bite the bullet and split GENERIC into GENERIC
> >> (which would have modules for everything) and GENERIC_NOMODULES.
> >>
> >> Then just populate a default module list that goes into /boot/loader.conf.
> >
> > No, the list must be in kld_list="" in rc.conf.
> > If you add all the modules to loader.conf you can drink a coffee while
> > the system boots.
> 
> .. so improve loader so that doesn't suck so hard.

Sure, but the rc.conf solution is the lower hanging fruit. :)


pgpIszgWmzYJo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Ollivier Robert]

According to Adrian Chadd on Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:46AM -0700:
> If you're even more evil, you could populate a module list that goes
> into /boot//module.conf.default, and then allow that to be
> overridden.
> 
> Point is - a modular kernel works, right now. What we're missing is a
> way to load them at boot time by the bootloader. Well, enough of them
> to bring up the system so the rest can be autoloaded as needed.
> 
> _That_ whole mess would be a great GSoC project.

I completely agree.

-- 
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.net
In memoriam to Ondine, our 2nd child: http://ondine.keltia.net/

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 April 2013 01:38, Lars Engels  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:46AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> .. or we could just bite the bullet and split GENERIC into GENERIC
>> (which would have modules for everything) and GENERIC_NOMODULES.
>>
>> Then just populate a default module list that goes into /boot/loader.conf.
>
> No, the list must be in kld_list="" in rc.conf.
> If you add all the modules to loader.conf you can drink a coffee while
> the system boots.

.. so improve loader so that doesn't suck so hard.



Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Lars Engels]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:46AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. or we could just bite the bullet and split GENERIC into GENERIC
> (which would have modules for everything) and GENERIC_NOMODULES.
> 
> Then just populate a default module list that goes into /boot/loader.conf.

No, the list must be in kld_list="" in rc.conf.
If you add all the modules to loader.conf you can drink a coffee while
the system boots.

> 
> If you're even more evil, you could populate a module list that goes
> into /boot//module.conf.default, and then allow that to be
> overridden.
> 
> Point is - a modular kernel works, right now. What we're missing is a
> way to load them at boot time by the bootloader. Well, enough of them
> to bring up the system so the rest can be autoloaded as needed.
> 
> _That_ whole mess would be a great GSoC project.

+1


pgpuBzlZI_kIu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Adrian Chadd]

.. or we could just bite the bullet and split GENERIC into GENERIC
(which would have modules for everything) and GENERIC_NOMODULES.

Then just populate a default module list that goes into /boot/loader.conf.

If you're even more evil, you could populate a module list that goes
into /boot//module.conf.default, and then allow that to be
overridden.

Point is - a modular kernel works, right now. What we're missing is a
way to load them at boot time by the bootloader. Well, enough of them
to bring up the system so the rest can be autoloaded as needed.

_That_ whole mess would be a great GSoC project.



Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Ollivier Robert]

According to Freddie Cash on Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:32:11AM -0700:
> Mostly off-topic for this thread, but improving the boot process to
> auto-detect hardware and auto-load kernel modules would be really nice.
> That way, GENERIC would be very small, with just the basic frameworks
> required (CAM, USB, PCI, TCP/IP, etc), and all the actual drivers would be
> loaded from modules.  That would remove almost all requirements to compile
> a custom kernel in the first place.  :)
> 
> Granted, changing "options" in the kernel would require recompilation, but
> general use and hardware changes wouldn't.

That's what Solaris has been doing for years and yes, it does make a lot of 
sense.

-- 
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.net
In memoriam to Ondine, our 2nd child: http://ondine.keltia.net/

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Teske, Devin]

On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:


El 24/04/2013 21:18, "Teske, Devin" 
mailto:devin.te...@fisglobal.com>> escribió:
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:03:56PM -0400, Justin Edward Muniz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think the interface to pkgng and freebsd-update are still
> >>> interesting; at least more worthwhile than the kernel configuration
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>> I think the pkgng one has the edge, since packages are updated far
> >>> more often than base, and it's easier to track base.
> >>>
> >>> Now you are at a stage where you should make your own decision; which
> >>> one looks the most interesting to you?  Once you decide on an area of
> >>> interest, you can just start hacking :)
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's good to hear.
> >>
> >> I am sure that you are right, a pkgng GUI would probably see more use in
> >> general. I am definitely close to making my decision, but this thread has
> >> been so much help, I am glad for the insight.
> >>
> >> The coding is what I look forward to the most :D
> >
> > imho a pkgng frontend should be done via packagekit, just write a pkgng 
> > backend
> > for packagekit and you will gain for FreeBSD a KDE frontend and a GTK 
> > frontend.
> >
> > That said any frontend at convenience to contributor will be anyway good :)
> >
>
> If you could pardon my ignorance… but what is packagekit again (for the 
> benefit of others)?

It's an application to manage packages. It is developed in a way that it's easy 
to add new backends keeping the same interface. See[1] for the general 
information and this[2] page for the currently supported back ends.

[1] 
http://www.packagekit.org

[2] 
http://www.packagekit.org/pk-matrix.html


Cool. Kinda reminds me of "SANE" for interfacing with scanners.
--
Devin

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Fernando Apesteguía]

El 24/04/2013 21:18, "Teske, Devin"  escribió:
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:03:56PM -0400, Justin Edward Muniz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think the interface to pkgng and freebsd-update are still
> >>> interesting; at least more worthwhile than the kernel configuration
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>> I think the pkgng one has the edge, since packages are updated far
> >>> more often than base, and it's easier to track base.
> >>>
> >>> Now you are at a stage where you should make your own decision; which
> >>> one looks the most interesting to you?  Once you decide on an area of
> >>> interest, you can just start hacking :)
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's good to hear.
> >>
> >> I am sure that you are right, a pkgng GUI would probably see more use
in
> >> general. I am definitely close to making my decision, but this thread
has
> >> been so much help, I am glad for the insight.
> >>
> >> The coding is what I look forward to the most :D
> >
> > imho a pkgng frontend should be done via packagekit, just write a pkgng
backend
> > for packagekit and you will gain for FreeBSD a KDE frontend and a GTK
frontend.
> >
> > That said any frontend at convenience to contributor will be anyway
good :)
> >
>
> If you could pardon my ignorance… but what is packagekit again (for the
benefit of others)?

It's an application to manage packages. It is developed in a way that it's
easy to add new backends keeping the same interface. See[1] for the general
information and this[2] page for the currently supported back ends.

[1] http://www.packagekit.org

[2] http://www.packagekit.org/pk-matrix.html

> --
> Devin
>
> _
> The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the
message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message
in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please
be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving
and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
> ___
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Justin Edward Muniz]

> You'll probably want to get in touch with the PC-BSD folks.  As they are
> moving to pkgng for everything, they are updating their Python-based GUIs
> to work with it.  Might be a possibility to work together, or to build
off what
> they have, or to get ideas/inspiration for a more general tool.

I will definitely contact them with any questions I have. I have just been
reading through the script called pc-updatemanager and it is a nice aid for
developing a pkgng back-end with.

> If you could pardon my ignorance… but what is packagekit again (for the
> benefit of others)?

I've just looked into this myself, it is an api and daemon that together
allow you to create a package manager while not worrying about the abstract
inner workings. The benefit is that one back-end (for pkgng in this case)
could be programmed, but it would work with both the gtk and qt packagekit
clients. On top of everything it offers some really cool advanced features.
(http://www.packagekit.org/)

> imho a pkgng frontend should be done via packagekit, just write a pkgng
> backend for packagekit and you will gain for FreeBSD a KDE frontend and
> a GTK frontend.

I really like this suggestion, I am looking in to this now and it is very,
very cool. I still need to learn more about it but I appreciate the
recommendation. I had never heard about packagekit before today.

> The tool is bsdconfig

I checked out your Web site, and I want to say congratulations on your
progress. It is quite an accomplishment. I think that a modern GUI could
however appeal to a different crowd. If FreeBSD comes with bsdconfig,
perhaps a qt GUI could be an alternative.

I like qt compared to xdialog because you can have a more persistent
interface with more options available to you at any one time. There is less
navigating through menus.

Thank you for letting me know about your work, I will take it in
consideration when trying to develop the strongest proposal I can.

Justin Muniz
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Teske, Devin]

On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:03:56PM -0400, Justin Edward Muniz wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think the interface to pkgng and freebsd-update are still
>>> interesting; at least more worthwhile than the kernel configuration
>>> one.
>>> 
>>> I think the pkgng one has the edge, since packages are updated far
>>> more often than base, and it's easier to track base.
>>> 
>>> Now you are at a stage where you should make your own decision; which
>>> one looks the most interesting to you?  Once you decide on an area of
>>> interest, you can just start hacking :)
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That's good to hear.
>> 
>> I am sure that you are right, a pkgng GUI would probably see more use in
>> general. I am definitely close to making my decision, but this thread has
>> been so much help, I am glad for the insight.
>> 
>> The coding is what I look forward to the most :D
> 
> imho a pkgng frontend should be done via packagekit, just write a pkgng 
> backend
> for packagekit and you will gain for FreeBSD a KDE frontend and a GTK 
> frontend.
> 
> That said any frontend at convenience to contributor will be anyway good :)
> 

If you could pardon my ignorance… but what is packagekit again (for the benefit 
of others)?
-- 
Devin

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Teske, Devin]

On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Teske, Devin wrote:


On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Justin Edward Muniz <
justin.mu...@maine.edu> wrote:


I think the interface to pkgng and freebsd-update are still
interesting; at least more worthwhile than the kernel configuration
one.

I think the pkgng one has the edge, since packages are updated far
more often than base, and it's easier to track base.

Now you are at a stage where you should make your own decision; which
one looks the most interesting to you?  Once you decide on an area of
interest, you can just start hacking :)

Chris



That's good to hear.

I am sure that you are right, a pkgng GUI would probably see more use in
general. I am definitely close to making my decision, but this thread has
been so much help, I am glad for the insight.

The coding is what I look forward to the most :D


You'll probably want to get in touch with the PC-BSD folks.  As they are
moving to pkgng for everything, they are updating their Python-based GUIs
to work with it.  Might be a possibility to work together, or to build off
what they have, or to get ideas/inspiration for a more general tool.

For example, (going from memory of my home PC-BSD install) the System
Update or System Manager tool uses pkgng behind the scenes, and provides a
tree-based view of PC-BSD-specific packages that can be installed via
simply ticking checkboxes and hitting Install button.

And, they have a ports-based GUI tool as well, although I have not used it
as yet so couldn't tell you what it supports.  I do my ports-based installs
via a terminal.  :)


I've been planning a pkgng management tool in base for a while now (and am 
closing in on that goal).

The tool is bsdconfig

It's relevant to this discussion because it supports running both in GUI and in 
TUI.

This is accomplished by using dialog(1) for TUI and Xdialog(1) (from ports) for 
GUI. One code base, two modes.

The package management is being implemented as a bsdconfig(8) module in HEAD 
(see usr.sbin/bsdconfig).


Clarification:

The module is being *implemented* in HEAD, but is being *developed* on 
SF.net (URL Below):

http://druidbsd.sf.net/download/bsdconfig/

Right now, if you download the latest tarball from that directory 
(bsdconfig.YYMMDD-#.tgz) and replace "usr.sbin/bsdconfig" in your checked-out 
tree, you'll have ~1500 lines more than HEAD (at the time of this writing).

My plan is to (before the next BAFUG) commit the packages module in one swift 
action (hence why I'm developing it outside of the main tree).
--
Devin



Executing "bsdconfig packages" produces something inspired by sysinstall but 
greatly improved (faster, cleaner, more efficient, and provides more data).

Here's a screenshot:
http://twitpic.com/ci2rid

Sorry, no screenshot of the X11 side yet.

Executing "bsdconfig -X packages" or "bsdconfig packages -X" gives you the X11 
GUI.

Is it the flashiest GUI you've ever seen? Far from it. But when I've demo'd the 
code, people have been generally positive about the approach.

Just wanted to let you know what my plans are.

Feel free to go full-boar with a Qt-based front-end, just wanted to let you 
know what I'm cooking in HEAD.
--
Devin

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Teske, Devin]

On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Justin Edward Muniz <
justin.mu...@maine.edu> wrote:


I think the interface to pkgng and freebsd-update are still
interesting; at least more worthwhile than the kernel configuration
one.

I think the pkgng one has the edge, since packages are updated far
more often than base, and it's easier to track base.

Now you are at a stage where you should make your own decision; which
one looks the most interesting to you?  Once you decide on an area of
interest, you can just start hacking :)

Chris



That's good to hear.

I am sure that you are right, a pkgng GUI would probably see more use in
general. I am definitely close to making my decision, but this thread has
been so much help, I am glad for the insight.

The coding is what I look forward to the most :D


You'll probably want to get in touch with the PC-BSD folks.  As they are
moving to pkgng for everything, they are updating their Python-based GUIs
to work with it.  Might be a possibility to work together, or to build off
what they have, or to get ideas/inspiration for a more general tool.

For example, (going from memory of my home PC-BSD install) the System
Update or System Manager tool uses pkgng behind the scenes, and provides a
tree-based view of PC-BSD-specific packages that can be installed via
simply ticking checkboxes and hitting Install button.

And, they have a ports-based GUI tool as well, although I have not used it
as yet so couldn't tell you what it supports.  I do my ports-based installs
via a terminal.  :)


I've been planning a pkgng management tool in base for a while now (and am 
closing in on that goal).

The tool is bsdconfig

It's relevant to this discussion because it supports running both in GUI and in 
TUI.

This is accomplished by using dialog(1) for TUI and Xdialog(1) (from ports) for 
GUI. One code base, two modes.

The package management is being implemented as a bsdconfig(8) module in HEAD 
(see usr.sbin/bsdconfig).

Executing "bsdconfig packages" produces something inspired by sysinstall but 
greatly improved (faster, cleaner, more efficient, and provides more data).

Here's a screenshot:
http://twitpic.com/ci2rid

Sorry, no screenshot of the X11 side yet.

Executing "bsdconfig -X packages" or "bsdconfig packages -X" gives you the X11 
GUI.

Is it the flashiest GUI you've ever seen? Far from it. But when I've demo'd the 
code, people have been generally positive about the approach.

Just wanted to let you know what my plans are.

Feel free to go full-boar with a Qt-based front-end, just wanted to let you 
know what I'm cooking in HEAD.
--
Devin

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Justin Edward Muniz]

>
> Side note: I agree that we would really, really like FreeBSD more user
> friendly.
>
> However, is kernel configuration where we really want to start?  Just how
> much of the user base reconfigures their kernels, anyway?  Wouldn't effort
> be better spent on making normal installation, maintenance and deployment
> clean and easy?
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>


What you say makes a lot of sense. I am feeling confident that the kernel
GUI should be a lower priority, and not used for the GSoC proposal.

Thank you for your time.

Justin Muniz
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Freddie Cash]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Justin Edward Muniz <
justin.mu...@maine.edu> wrote:

> >
> > I think the interface to pkgng and freebsd-update are still
> > interesting; at least more worthwhile than the kernel configuration
> > one.
> >
> > I think the pkgng one has the edge, since packages are updated far
> > more often than base, and it's easier to track base.
> >
> > Now you are at a stage where you should make your own decision; which
> > one looks the most interesting to you?  Once you decide on an area of
> > interest, you can just start hacking :)
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
> That's good to hear.
>
> I am sure that you are right, a pkgng GUI would probably see more use in
> general. I am definitely close to making my decision, but this thread has
> been so much help, I am glad for the insight.
>
> The coding is what I look forward to the most :D
>

You'll probably want to get in touch with the PC-BSD folks.  As they are
moving to pkgng for everything, they are updating their Python-based GUIs
to work with it.  Might be a possibility to work together, or to build off
what they have, or to get ideas/inspiration for a more general tool.

For example, (going from memory of my home PC-BSD install) the System
Update or System Manager tool uses pkgng behind the scenes, and provides a
tree-based view of PC-BSD-specific packages that can be installed via
simply ticking checkboxes and hitting Install button.

And, they have a ports-based GUI tool as well, although I have not used it
as yet so couldn't tell you what it supports.  I do my ports-based installs
via a terminal.  :)

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwc...@gmail.com
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Justin Edward Muniz]

>
> Mostly off-topic for this thread, but improving the boot process to
> auto-detect hardware and auto-load kernel modules would be really nice.
> That way, GENERIC would be very small, with just the basic frameworks
> required (CAM, USB, PCI, TCP/IP, etc), and all the actual drivers would be
> loaded from modules.  That would remove almost all requirements to compile
> a custom kernel in the first place.  :)
>
> Granted, changing "options" in the kernel would require recompilation, but
> general use and hardware changes wouldn't.
>
> Most likely not a GSoC project.  But it's still a nice dream.  :)
> --
> Freddie Cash
> fjwc...@gmail.com
>


I really like that idea. If I remember correctly some folks over at PC-BSD
have started creating scripts to load sound and graphics drivers. Your idea
may be closer to reality than you think!

Justin Muniz
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Freddie Cash]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Tony Li  wrote:

>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Lars Engels  wrote:
>
> > It _is_ easy. But having a nice graphical tool which draws a pretty
> table of
> > GENERIC and NOTES together with useful information about the possible
> options
> > and devices would be a handy thing to have IMHO.
> > Let's make FreeBSD userfriendly :-)
>
>
> Side note: I agree that we would really, really like FreeBSD more user
> friendly.
>
> However, is kernel configuration where we really want to start?  Just how
> much of the user base reconfigures their kernels, anyway?  Wouldn't effort
> be better spent on making normal installation, maintenance and deployment
> clean and easy?
>

Mostly off-topic for this thread, but improving the boot process to
auto-detect hardware and auto-load kernel modules would be really nice.
That way, GENERIC would be very small, with just the basic frameworks
required (CAM, USB, PCI, TCP/IP, etc), and all the actual drivers would be
loaded from modules.  That would remove almost all requirements to compile
a custom kernel in the first place.  :)

Granted, changing "options" in the kernel would require recompilation, but
general use and hardware changes wouldn't.

Most likely not a GSoC project.  But it's still a nice dream.  :)
-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwc...@gmail.com
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Tony Li]

On Apr 24, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Lars Engels  wrote:

> It _is_ easy. But having a nice graphical tool which draws a pretty table of
> GENERIC and NOTES together with useful information about the possible options
> and devices would be a handy thing to have IMHO.
> Let's make FreeBSD userfriendly :-)


Side note: I agree that we would really, really like FreeBSD more user 
friendly.  

However, is kernel configuration where we really want to start?  Just how much 
of the user base reconfigures their kernels, anyway?  Wouldn't effort be better 
spent on making normal installation, maintenance and deployment clean and easy?

Regards,
Tony

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

[Mark Saad]

On Apr 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Justin Edward Muniz  wrote:

> Hello everyone once again,
> 
> I decided to split this from my previous thread because the nature of
> my questions has changed. I benefited from the last thread, and I am
> grateful to those who responded to it.
> 
> For me Google Summer of Code is a big opportunity, and my interest in
> contributing to the open source community is fairly limited to FreeBSD for
> many reasons. I know that my application may have a better chance of being
> approved if I have a mentor to help me with my endeavors.
> 
> I currently have three project ideas in mind; however I need to
> understand which one would be the most beneficial, and try to find a
> mentor, before I create my proposal. Eventually I would like to develop
> each application and release them along with a meta-package that comprises
> of them all. For now, I need to focus on just one of the three.
> 
> Originally I was interested in developing a Qt front-end for
> freebsd-update; indeed most of my research has been for that project.
> However, I am also interested in furthering kports -- which seems to be
> notoriously buggy, has broken package functionality, and is a mammoth of an
> application; the last development for kports was in 2009. I also am
> interested in developing a graphical application to customize the FreeBSD
> kernel.
> 
> I have compiled a list of features that I would like to concentrate on
> for each project. Some of the features are far less important than others,
> so my actual application may omit some of them, or consider them optional.
> If it would be appropriate I will certainly share my lists, but since the
> lists are long I don't want to spam the mailing-list. I am new to this
> community after all!
> 
> If anyone is interested in discussing these possibilities or just one
> of them in particular, I will greatly appreciate any advice, insight,
> concerns, criticism, or ideas. Ideally I am also looking to talk with
> anyone who might be interested in mentoring my Google Summer of Code
> project.
> 
> Justin Muniz
> __


Justin I say stick to  FreeBSD-update . My reason is, as Pkgng becomes more 
popular , a front end for ports will be less useful as binary packages become 
more popular . Kports is a monster program , you should set a reasonable goal 
,and target dates; which may be hard with a cleanup project .   Also a update 
notifier for kde that handles FreeBSD update would be very useful . 

My 2cents .
---
Mark saad | mark.s...@longcount.org

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"