Possible Replacements for the system-config-* utilities?

[Kelly Miller]

Well, now that F8 is approaching release, I wanted to bring up the
possibility of updating the configuration utilities again.  I'd be
willing to work on such a project (fixing the frontend problems so the
utilities could be used without X, etc.), but I'm not entirely
familiar with all the options covered by the utilities (for example,
I've never used the cluster management or bootloader editor systems,
and I'm not completely familiar with all of the configuration files
here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development
(though I've done development in similar RAD languages like Ruby, Java
and C# so I'm familiar with the general concepts), but I'll give it a
shot in Python if that's preferred.  Secondly, is there a decent
resource for covering some of the configuration files required by the
programs?

[Janina Sajka]

Kelly Miller writes:
>  Well, now that F8 is approaching release, I wanted to bring up the
>  possibility of updating the configuration utilities again.  I'd be
>  willing to work on such a project (fixing the frontend problems so the
>  utilities could be used without X, etc.), but I'm not entirely
>  familiar with all the options covered by the utilities (for example,
>  I've never used the cluster management or bootloader editor systems,
>  and I'm not completely familiar with all of the configuration files
>  here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development 
If you use gtk2 you get accessibility support pretty much by default.
You also get the opportunity for scripted testing via Dogtail (and/or
LDTP) as these rely on the accessibility framework.

Janina


>  like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python
> development
>  (though I've done development in similar RAD languages like Ruby, Java
>  and C# so I'm familiar with the general concepts), but I'll give it a
>  shot in Python if that's preferred.  Secondly, is there a decent
>  resource for covering some of the configuration files required by the
>  programs?
>  
>  -- 
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list 
-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	[phone];	sip:[e-mail]
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://CapitalAccessibility.Com

Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada
Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina(a)a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:55:08AM -0500, Kelly Miller wrote:
>  here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
>  like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development 
Almost certainly Python.

The key reason these utilties need rewriting is to separate the user
interface (GUI, full-screen text-mode, and command-line) from the possibly
privileged actions they need to perform. 

This should be done using PolicyKit -- see
<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeaturePolicyKit>;.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Nov 8, 2007 10:48 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:55:08AM -0500, Kelly Miller wrote:
>  > here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
>  > like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development
>
>  Almost certainly Python.
>
>  The key reason these utilties need rewriting is to separate the user
>  interface (GUI, full-screen text-mode, and command-line) from the possibly
>  privileged actions they need to perform.
>
>  This should be done using PolicyKit -- see
>  <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeaturePolicyKit>;. 


If these utilities are going to be rewritten, please make it public, I
have a feature that I would like to see in them, and I am willing to
work on myself.


-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

[Kelly Miller]

Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>  If these utilities are going to be rewritten, please make it public,
> I
>  have a feature that I would like to see in them, and I am willing to
>  work on myself.
>     
Obviously.  I can't think of any other decent way of doing this.  I'm 
just not sure where to host it at.

[Seth Vidal]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 16:32 -0500, Kelly Miller wrote:
>  Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>  > If these utilities are going to be rewritten, please make it public, I
>  > have a feature that I would like to see in them, and I am willing to
>  > work on myself.
>  >   
>  Obviously.  I can't think of any other decent way of doing this.  I'm 
>  just not sure where to host it at. 
hosted.fedoraproject.org !!!


of course!

-sv

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Nov 8, 2007 3:32 PM, Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>  > If these utilities are going to be rewritten, please make it public, I
>  > have a feature that I would like to see in them, and I am willing to
>  > work on myself.
>  > 

>  Obviously.  I can't think of any other decent way of doing this. 
> I'm
>  just not sure where to host it at. 

I meant please make the  _decision_ to do so (rewrite) public. And
also, please hold a few RFC sessions to discuss things before anyone
goes off coding on a tangent.




-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

[Nils Philippsen]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 11:48 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:55:08AM -0500, Kelly Miller wrote:
>  > here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
>  > like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development
>  
>  Almost certainly Python.
>  
>  The key reason these utilties need rewriting is to separate the user 
They don't need rewriting, they need refactoring. There's too much logic
in the tools already to be able to make throwing it all away and
beginning from scratch feasible without breaking things. There's also a
lot of wheel-reinvention in the tools as they are today, i.e. a
potential for code consolidation between the tools.

>  interface (GUI, full-screen text-mode, and command-line) from the
> possibly
>  privileged actions they need to perform.  
I agree that UI and logic need separation and ...

>  This should be done using PolicyKit -- see
>  <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeaturePolicyKit>;. 
... using PolicyKit to encapsulate privileged operations is what I had
in mind, at least for my tools (date, nfs, services, samba, users). Mind
that not all logic needs to be run with elevated privileges.

Just for the record, I'm open for contributions, especially in the area
of (lack of) TUIs. I'm not so open for contributions that begin with
"let's rewrite this from scratch".

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp(a)redhat.com
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
 Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  --  B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Nov 9, 2007 5:08 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 11:48 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:55:08AM -0500, Kelly Miller wrote:
>  > > here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
>  > > like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development
>  >
>  > Almost certainly Python.
>  >
>  > The key reason these utilties need rewriting is to separate the user
>
>  They don't need rewriting, they need refactoring. There's too much logic
>  in the tools already to be able to make throwing it all away and
>  beginning from scratch feasible without breaking things. There's also a
>  lot of wheel-reinvention in the tools as they are today, i.e. a
>  potential for code consolidation between the tools. 
Agreed. We don't have time to do them from scratch, other tools need
to be written:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SystemConfig/Missing

I would like to see, and I am willing to work on, all these tools
being able to function on remote machines via SSH. I can provide
details of my idea if anyone is interested.

-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Nov 7, 2007 8:55 AM, Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Well, now that F8 is approaching release, I wanted to bring up the
>  possibility of updating the configuration utilities again.  I'd be
>  willing to work on such a project (fixing the frontend problems so the
>  utilities could be used without X, etc.), but I'm not entirely
>  familiar with all the options covered by the utilities (for example,
>  I've never used the cluster management or bootloader editor systems,
>  and I'm not completely familiar with all of the configuration files
>  here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
>  like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development
>  (though I've done development in similar RAD languages like Ruby, Java
>  and C# so I'm familiar with the general concepts), but I'll give it a
>  shot in Python if that's preferred.  Secondly, is there a decent
>  resource for covering some of the configuration files required by the
>  programs? 

I don't think C# is RAD.


-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

[Thomas Woerner]

Kelly Miller wrote:
>  Well, now that F8 is approaching release, I wanted to bring up the
>  possibility of updating the configuration utilities again.  I'd be
>  willing to work on such a project (fixing the frontend problems so the
>  utilities could be used without X, etc.), but I'm not entirely
>  familiar with all the options covered by the utilities (for example,
>  I've never used the cluster management or bootloader editor systems,
>  and I'm not completely familiar with all of the configuration files
>  here).  First of all, is there a preferred language for development
>  like this?  I've actually done very little to no Python development
>  (though I've done development in similar RAD languages like Ruby, Java
>  and C# so I'm familiar with the general concepts), but I'll give it a
>  shot in Python if that's preferred.  Secondly, is there a decent
>  resource for covering some of the configuration files required by the
>  programs?
>   
Hello Kelly,


There is already work ongoing. The project name is system-config. If you 
want to know more about this, please have a look at 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SystemConfig. Yet, the wiki-pages are not 
complete, but they should reflect the desired way to go.

Currently there is some review going on for the existing tools 
altogether with building up the base classes and functions for the new 
framework (in an early stage). A big problem is the text interface, 
because there is no ui library, which can be used as a drop-in without 
big modifications in the ui itself and the config tools, that provides 
the needed widgets and functionality.

As there is lots of work to do, every helping hand is welcome.

There will be an own email list shortly. You can also join the irc 
channel #system-config on irc.freenode.net. If you are interested in 
participating in this project, feel free to contact us in the irc channel.


Thanks,
Thomas