Home_greyopenFATE - openSUSE feature tracking > #306968
Dashboard | Search | Sign up | Login

Please login or register to be able to edit or vote this feature.

rewrite yast in C#

Feature state

Rejected Information


Yast is the best control panel for any distro. It has become quite big and it has alot of modules and many more to come Since yast is written in its own language ( http://en.opensuse.org/YaST/Research/Make_YaST_Independent_of_YCP )  which quite few people know, so it is difficult others to get involved. 

I think we should start thinking about rewriting yast in a popular and advanced () language like C++, python or C#.... It will make development of yast faster and people find it easy to write modules according their own requirements. My suggestion is to write it in C#.

Writing it in such an advance can make app arch much simpler and also make it easy to maintain. My target release is 12.0, since it is not in option so I'm selecting 11.3 .

My idea is to write back-end library in C# and gui in both GTk and QT/Kde for gnome and KDE users respectively. We can have binding for other languages (like python and ruby) as well.



icons/user_comment.png A. D. wrote: (9 years ago)

Totally disagree! 

The last language we should pursue is Mono / .NET 
QT consider first, then other languages, but nothing that has to 
do with Mono

icons/user_comment.png S. u. wrote: (9 years ago)

Can you explain disagreement? C# is ECMA standard, so it should not be a problem.

Qt is Gui toolkit not a language.

icons/user_comment.png A. D. wrote: (9 years ago)

Fedora, Debian and other Distributions limited as possible to use Mono ... openSUSE is a mistake to spend time in YaST rewrite in C # language to include a potential problem with patents. 
It is well that QT is not a language itself but it is understood the message. 

A few wise words.

icons/user_comment.png S. u. wrote: (9 years ago)

I don't think that MS is going to sue. There are many open source projects which have  potential problems with patents, like mplayer, xine, ffmpeg, wine (special note), etc.... These projects never sued and I don't think that they are going to be sued. These projects are some or other way very useful for them. 

icons/user_comment.png b. m. wrote: (8 years ago)

Besides the C# discussion; I am also not a fan of MS stuff, any other advanced language sounds reasonable for me, there were no arguments against this proposal so far.

icons/user_comment.png M. K. wrote: (8 years ago)

At least under KDE, Mono is not even installed by default, thus not using up any space on the KDE live CD. Live CD space is precious and should be used for unnecessary virtual machines like Mono or Java.

icons/user_comment.png R. D. wrote: (8 years ago)

This is against part of the UNIX philosophy, creating a small special purpose tool language is often the neatest way to implement something.

In another language it's likely ycp-ism's would be replaced by a YaST implementation library, which require just as much effort, but also require knowledge of the general purpose language increasing, not decreasing the pain^Wthreshold of contributions.

If ycp is really an awful impediment, then perhaps a review of the language design to the current problem space, would be more appropriate than picking some currently cool language and doing a translation.

C# - not in default install, immature implementation not popular with Linux developers

Python - seems to be in transition Python3, much more popular with Linux'ers

C++ - this is going to be easier than ycp script?

Looking at .ycp files, it looks like a fairly readable script; YaST2 is in good shape at the moment, from user point of view a rewrite in another language will just introduce bugs.

icons/user_comment.png M. A. wrote: (8 years ago)

It's isn't broken, so let's not fix it.

icons/user_comment.png A. J. wrote: (8 years ago)

YaST is already changing - into WebYaST and C++ libraries. If you like to help here, talk to the yast developers on the yast-devel opensuse mailing list.

icons/user_comment.png n. s. wrote: (8 years ago)

C# is slow compared to C and C++ and for the most part much less portable. So why on earth would you want to do this to something that's efficient and has been in place for so long?

Last change: 8 years ago
Loading tags...
Feature Export
Application-xmlXML   Text-x-logPlaintext   PrinterPrint