Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 *

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 GE

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 l

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 g

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

.. 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.co

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 t

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> 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.

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > 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, maintena

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > 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 > lo

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 :-)

Re: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 Goog