Arvin, thanks a lot for stepping forward and starting this dicussion ! * Arvin Schnell <aschnell@suse.de> [Jan 28. 2011 16:50]:
So what seems desirable and feasible? Some ideas:
Which goals would you achieve by implementing these ideas ?
1) Replace YCP with some common language? With more that 100 modules this looks impossible.
A lot of modules will have to be removed anyway as there are no resources to keep them all. Replacing YCP seems more feasible with a limited set of modules (implementing a limited set of features)
2) Allow a common language next to YCP? A good integration seems difficult.
I would assume this will add confusion.
3) Improve YCP (at least fix bugs)? Do we want that?
Can you name any specific areas in YCP urgently requiring fixes ?
4) Better bindings of C/C++ libraries for YCP?
Having good APIs is certainly a big plus, but investing into YCP does not seem appropriate.
Other suggestion?
Can we make existing YaST modules reusable, i.e. by providing well defined APIs (D-Bus, REST, Perl, Python, Ruby, whatever) ? Klaus --- 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