From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 14 15:36:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AD915353 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:36:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@holly.dyndns.org) Received: from holly.dyndns.org ([216.62.157.60]) by mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FMR008ZQ861C8@mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net> for current@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:34:49 -0600 (CST) Received: (from chris@localhost) by holly.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07906; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:37:15 -0600 (CST envelope-from chris) X-URL: http://www.FreeBSD.org/~chris/ Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:37:14 -0600 From: Chris Costello Subject: Re: sysinstall: is it really at the end of its lifecycle? In-reply-to: <2683.945164965@zippy.cdrom.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Donn Miller , Eric Jones , current@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: chris@calldei.com Message-id: <19991214173714.W868@holly.calldei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.4i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT (i386) References: <3855F364.E66EC87B@cvzoom.net> <2683.945164965@zippy.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Dec 14, 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > That's one of the design precepts of the New System, in fact. There > is one common UI abstraction which sysinstall II (hereafter referred > to as Setup) and the new package system both use. The generic UI > front-end API is "bound" at runtime to a back-end implementation > class, the two currently supported ones being Qt and Turbovision (the > references implementation for the common UI stuff is all written in > C++), and everything pops up in the appropriate UI environment from > that point forward. Our test code checks for $DISPLAY and does the > appropriate Qt magic in that case, otherwise it binds in Turbovision. > In theory, one could even write a back-end class which talked to a > browser. Scary. :) Is Qt going to be put into the base system in this case? If I can wrestle along with figuring out a few little problems with Qt (ones that I could even somehow more easily solve with Motif!), then I'll continue to develop my system administration tool(s) with it. Another possible solution I was thinking about (but will probably really regret) is keeping a binary distribution and enabling source builds only if a Motif or Lesstif port is installed. Yes, this implies that I would write it in Motif. And yes, I'm also sure that it will meet with much disagreement. > In order to ensure that the package's installation routines call the > common UI routines for all their interaction needs (remember the VTY2 > scenario), a package's installation script is also now assumed to be a > secure TCL script rather than being the arbitrary executable it is > now. This has a number of implications even more important than > simple interface unification, of course, most of them in the realm of > security. So is all of this (TCL, Qt, et. al.) going into the base system to facilitate this work? -- |Chris Costello |A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken. `-------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message