On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:35:26PM +0100, Stanislav Visnovsky wrote:
3) Improve YCP (at least fix bugs)? Do we want that?
What kind of bugs do you see in YCP? There is only a couple of them I'm aware of and they can be easily workarounded. In this regard, I don't think it's worth trying to fix them.
Sure they can be workarounded otherwise YaST storage would not work anymore. But I remember bug reports concerning YCP that had several duplicated. At some point the cost of fixing a bug is less that the cost of people finding and workarounding the bug. It all depends on our long-term plans for YCP.
4) Better bindings of C/C++ libraries for YCP?
What's the goal of this option?
Easier integration of existing code/libraries in YaST, e.g. augeas or libxml. Ok, for augeas we can implement a module and for libxml we already have one. But then someone who knows the library will have to read the documentation for the YaST module to be able to use it. And surely we have to write that documentation first. The currently generated bindings for libstorage are so bad that almost every function has handwritten make-it-usable-code in YCP. This hinders moving code from YCP to C++. Apart from that we even need workarounds in libstorage to avoid seg. faults since the bindings cannot handle C++ strings (that internally have pointers) inside structs. And AFAIK the handwritten bindings for libzypp are always a bit outdated and lack features. ciao Arvin -- Arvin Schnell, <aschnell@suse.de> Senior Software Engineer, Research & Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org