Re: Roadmap for LUA support in GRUB

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
<address@hidden> wrote:
>> Aha! So the Lua license really is a red herring here..
>>
>>
> We already explained the reasons.

You did. But, unfortunately, your explanation was not entirely correct. Which
is fine, because thanks to Robert I now know the answer that actually
makes perfect sense.

Licensing is thorny issues. It usually helps when it gets explained very, very
precisely.

> Please don't become personal on this.

What would make you say this? I don't think I've made any statements that
could be interpreted like making this matter a personal one.

> Except rescue parsers all parsers
> are implemented the same way and can replace one another. So what do you
> mean by "primary scripting language"?

A scripting language that is actively maintained and used for writing extensions
to GRUB. My original understanding was that Lua would fit this description,
now it seems that it was more like an odd experiment in GRUB trunk.

IOW, at the moment -- if I need to script GRUB my only portable choice would be,
unfortunately, its internal shell. With the current state of things I
can't rely on
Lua always being there for me.

> If what you mean is just one being
> default then no project can make default which suit all usres. It's what
> configuration is for. If you speak about invested efforts then you can't
> force people to spend time on something they don't want (but you can pay
> one of us to do stuff you need).

There's no need to be upset. What I'm after here is a simple statement of fact,
not value judgments. Its ok for GRUB not be interested in Lua. As long
as everybody
is clear on that -- no harm done.

Thanks,
Roman.