[Bug 192310] New: Review Request: PySyck

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.




https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192310

           Summary: Review Request: PySyck
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info
        ReportedBy: mdehaan at redhat.com
         QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com


Spec URL: http://michaeldehaan.net/software/RPMS/PySyck.spec
SRPM URL: http://michaeldehaan.net/software/RPMS/PySyck-0.61.2-1.src.rpm
Description: 

YAML is a data serialization format designed for human readability and interaction with scripting languages.

Syck is an extension for reading and writing YAML in scripting languages. Syck provides bindings to the Python programming language, but they are somewhat limited and leak memory.

PySyck is aimed to update the current Python bindings for Syck. The new bindings provide a wrapper for the Syck emitter and give access to YAML representation graphs.

PySyck may be used for various tasks, in particular, as a replacement of the module pickle
"""

History -- syck-python in FC Extras is a package that provides syck bindings that do not have serialization support (they are broken) and there is a bugzilla on this.  

Previously I suggested PyYaml for inclusion as an alternate to syck-python, though PyYaml does not do Yaml 1.0.  This package (PySyck) supports Yaml 1.0, which represents most of what YAML is "in the field" today.  This would provide a working YAML parser/serializer for Python that also can read YAML as written by Ruby's stock modules and the C syck implementation, for instance.

-- 
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.