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: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

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 > > mo

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: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > During some tests with cut down kernels one can easily make unbuildable > kernel, for example include option A, while omit hiddenly required B. > If there could be framework at least with deps tracking/checking, what > could be good for begin. > Both for configuring, and code clean up. > If thi

Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > 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 :-) I agree completely, hopefully we can make

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

Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > 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

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

Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > I agree. Also, the kind of people who compile their kernels probably > feel more comfortable in console mode :) > > The frontend for pkgng and freebsd-update might have a bigger user base. > Hello Fernando, thank you for pointing me towards kports earlier. I appreciate your help. It is star

Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

On 24 April 2013 18:30, Justin Edward Muniz wrote: >> Our kernel is actually very easy to configure, so I'm not convinced that >> it's needed; you may be thinking of Linux's menuconfig, but I think that is >> because of the complexity. >> >> Chris > > > > While configuring the kernel may be trivia

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: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

> > Our kernel is actually very easy to configure, so I'm not convinced that > it's needed; you may be thinking of Linux's menuconfig, but I think that is > because of the complexity. > > Chris > While configuring the kernel may be trivial to someone who understands the process and their systems

Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Lars Engels wrote: > Am 24.04.2013 13:44, schrieb Chris Rees: > > Our kernel is actually very easy to configure, so I'm not convinced that >> it's needed; you may be thinking of Linux's menuconfig, but I think that >> is >> because of the complexity. >> > > > It _

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: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

During some tests with cut down kernels one can easily make unbuildable kernel, for example include option A, while omit hiddenly required B. If there could be framework at least with deps tracking/checking, what could be good for begin. Both for configuring, and code clean up. If this will come up

Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

Am 24.04.2013 13:44, schrieb Chris Rees: On 24 Apr 2013 05:36, "Justin Edward Muniz" wrote: 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

Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

El 24/04/2013 13:45, "Chris Rees" escribió: > > On 24 Apr 2013 05:36, "Justin Edward Muniz" wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 .

Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends

On 24 Apr 2013 05:36, "Justin Edward Muniz" wrote: > > > > > 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 > > reasonabl