Re: Roadmap for LUA support in GRUB

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Robert Millan <address@hidden> wrote:
> First of all, there's no license problem.  We usually write our own code, but
> when we have specific reasons to import it from another project, any license
> that is compatible with GPL (v3 and later) would be considered suitable.

Aha! So the Lua license really is a red herring here..

> However, we only import code from external projects when there's an important
> reason to do so.  For example, we imported LZMA code because we needed the
> best compression around, and we didn't want to reinvent the wheel.  In the
> specific case of LUA, this compromise didn't make sense to us since we already
> had a scripting engine.

...the real reason seems to be that you don't really believe in Lua as a primary
scripting language for GRUB, correct?

IOW, the inclusion of Lua was more of a fluke than a deliberate
decision of investing
in a different scripting engine.

This is not a value judgment -- just an attempt to figure things out.
Personally I'm really
excited about Lua. I see that a lot folks share my opinion (I can't
wait to see Lua as
a scripting engine for NetBSD kernel, for example) and I thought that
GRUB project
was among these folks.

Thanks,
Roman.