:: Re: [DNG] Is netman being adopted o…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Mitt Green
Date:  
To: Edward Bartolo
CC: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] Is netman being adopted or was it a waste of time and effort?
‎Look for my first message in the thread, I describe
my experience with it there, I cc'ed you.

I see NETMAN.HELP, I mean it should be named README
and contain installation info as well.

obj and bin directories come up in backend folder,
and as suggested Makefile in the directory should also
be able to create these folders, if I understand everything
right.

I thought the GUI is written on gtk+2 and C
(apt-cache depends netman-gui), why actually
Object Pascal?

Mitt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------‎

  Original Message 

Hi,

The help plain text file is NETMAN.HELP and is found under netman's
root directory. If I need to add anything to NETMAN.HELP, please reply
so that I can add the required information.

What is wrong with line 259? Can you post what any relevant error messages?

Regarding adding an obj and bin directories, there is a complication
as netman is two projects in one: GUI frontend written in Lazarus
Object Pascal and the backend written in C. I would appreciate if more
direction is given to me in this regard.

Edward



On 20/11/2015, Mitt Green <mitt_green@???> wrote:
> This discussion went somewhere. Here's my
> summary:
>
> 1. netman can't be used yet because
>      - source code lacks bin and obj folders;
>      - something has to be done in backend.c,
>     in particular on line 259;
>      - packages built from the source
>     don't work either;
>      - ‎lack of man page;
>      - the actual docs should be named README.
>
> 2. I am interested in netman; there are no real
> lightweight network managers, even more, nothing
> written with gtk+2.
>
> 3. Things are going slowly and nothing had been
> decided yet as far as I see. Well, except for eliminating
> systemd. The question about adoption or abortion
> came up a bit early.
>
> Please consider my two cents,
>
> Mitt
>