Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:54:53 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Justin Edward Muniz <justin.muniz@maine.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: GSOC: Qt front-ends Message-ID: <20130424185452.GA50182@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BnOTRjudf7S2SLhUJm=7qbSvcVDz-4veqv7Dgh6AzNTOsNwhQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BnOTRjudf7S2SLhUJm=7qbSvcVDz-4veqv7Dgh6AzNTOsNwhQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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 :) regards, Bapt [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlF4KnwACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExYKQCgktP2SBIJvbbAoTtGCIOCPdCO o2oAoLlYiSarPJocRDzljMxJ2To8uUMq =fglU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130424185452.GA50182>