Re: Call for Foundation-supported Project Ideas
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 06:37:01 UTC
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:02 AM Daniel Ebdrup Jensen <debdrup@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:44:16PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: > >El mié., 24 nov. 2021 22:32, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> > >escribió: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 06:28:14PM -0500, Shawn Webb wrote: > >> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 06:41:01PM -0400, Joseph Mingrone wrote: > >> > > Hello FreeBSD community, > >> > > > >> > > The Foundation is seeking suggestions for new projects to support. > >> What > >> > > gaps in the Project are not being addressed by the broader community? > >> > > > >> > > You can read about past Foundation-supported projects at > >> > > https://freebsdfoundation.org/our-work/projects/ and the Foundation's > >> > > four main areas of focus in the 'Technology Roadmap' article at > >> > > https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/technology-roadmap/. > >> > > > >> > > Right now we are gathering ideas. We will send out a call for project > >> > > grant proposals soon. If you prefer to send your project ideas > >> directly > >> > > to the Foundation, we will be monitoring responses at > >> > > techteam@freebsdfoundation.org. > >> > > >> > Hey Joseph, > >> > > >> > Thanks for sending this out! > >> > > >> > Here's just a few things I'd love to see: > >> > > >> > 1. wireless mesh support. this would go _a long_ ways for supporting > >> > human rights efforts. > >> > 2. 100% llvm toolchain for base and ports. freebsd seems to already be > >> > going in this direction. > >> > 3. jail orchestration in base. it's great that we have all these > >> > disparate jail management ports, but we lack a fully > >> > coherent/integreated solution. I'd love to see jail orchestration > >> > get the same love as zfs in base. > >> > 4. tor browser bundle (port from openbsd?) > >> > > >> > That's at least what I can think of off the top of my head. > >> > >> Another idea: > >> > >> 5. Distributed Poudriere. I have a few systems that would benefit from > >> such a feature. For example, two ThunderX1 systems. And once I > >> resurrect our partially-dead ThunderX2 system, we'll have three > >> arm64 appliances in which we can build packages. > >> > > > >Package seeding in poudriere > > Hi folks, > > This has been in poudriere since May 2021 according to [1], and is > currently usable if you install poudriere-devel. Thanks for pointing that out. I've been closely following this feature in GH and the last comments from the "original" proposal is: "#797 is merged but there are a lot of pitfalls that make this not as useful as it seems. For example, llvm and all the other big stuff still builds. #822 will probably be needed to fix that." Also https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/issues/822 is still open. Package seeding is important precisely to avoid building big stuff (llvm, cmake, qt5*, etc). How often does poudriere get updated with changes from poudriere-devel? Or if poudriere-devel is stable enough I could give it a try anyway. > > Also, can I appeal to everyone's better nature, and ask not to +1 > if there's nothing else to add. This is a call for proposals, if > there's any voting to be done it will surely not be done via > mailing lists. :) > > Yours hopefully, > Daniel Ebdrup Jensen