Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-yaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190493 ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-04 10:08 EST ------- For what it's worth, Jeff Johnson has mentioned here that he has already packaged PySyck, which could also be an option for getting Python to have a decent YAML library that works. We could package both, or just PySyck. Doesn't matter much to me. Details are in comments here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189281 One issue from the author of PyYaml 3000 today was that it does YAML 1.1, but not 1.0 ... for interoperability this may point to PySyck making a bit more sense for cases where multiple languages want to get at the YAML data (interop with Ruby until it has a 1.1 parser, for instance). Personally I am interested in mainly using Yaml to store state in single applications so this doesn't concern me a whole lot, but it could affect other folks quite a bit -- and I'd like to make sure that use case is covered. (Especially Python/Ruby interoperability). So, if there is a bugzilla on including PySyck, I'd just assume get behind that one if it's easier. A working YAML implementation is better than none at all, and per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189281 we currently don't have a working option. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review