Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 14:50:51 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> Subject: Re: libh src/ import Message-ID: <952460000.999957051@lobster.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010906195928.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.010906195928.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Thursday, September 06, 2001 19:59:28 -0700 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > On 07-Sep-01 Mike Barcroft wrote: >> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: >>> On 06-Sep-01 Alexander Langer wrote: >>> > Hi! >>> > >>> > How are peoples feelings about an import of libh into our src tree, >>> > in order to push the development? >>> >>> As I said on IRC in an opinion that no one else seems to share, libh is >>> useful >>> in a wider regard than just FreeBSD, and I think it should be a separate >>> project that gets vendor imported into src/contrib. Let's face it guys, >>> FreeBSD doesn't have a lot of GUI people running around, and if libh is >>> going >>> to fly, it needs developers. IMHO, the best way to get developers for >>> it is to >>> not make it look like some FreeBSD-only thing, but instead to make it >>> inviting >>> to other developers. >> [snip] >> >> FreeBSD is more than just a kernel, you know. I don't think we should >> artificially limit ourselves by your imagination. > > Yes, I'm well aware, and I've been involved with libh (mostly earlier on) > for about a year (not much since then) and I can appreciate it's design > and it's role. Can someone outline how libh is going to fit into a roadmap for FreeBSD of some sort? I've been loosely following the libh list but it's not clear to me what the overall goals are. Are we going to have libh be another sysinstall, in that it's one big lump that is useless for developing other tools or is it going to be a set of modules that other admin tools can be built on top of. Likewise, how much abstraction does it provide for a user interface. Is libh basically a load of tcl scripts and TV or is it a framework that other tools can be built on top of or alongside using Perl or C. Bringing in TCL just for an installer would be a mistake, one we've actually made before and corrected. I don't see any reason to make it again unless there's an actual benefit to it. I also don't understand how much of a dependency there is on QT. I think some more information on what the roadmap looks like is needed before we decide whether to pull all this into our code base. Paul Richards FreeBSD Services Ltd http://www.freebsd-services.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?952460000.999957051>