Re: Roadmap for LUA support in GRUB

[Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko]

Bean wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Robert Millan <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 02:12:38AM +0800, Bean wrote:
>>     
>>> But no worry, I've created a fork project BURG that contains some
>>> brand-new features, the LUA engine will be added back soon.
>>>       
>> Does that make it any easier than maintaining LUA in grub-extras?
>>
>> When moving it there, I made it clear [1] that anyone who wishes to work
>> on LUA is welcome to use the grub-extras repository for that purpose [1].
>>
>> I expected a reply from you, but there was none.
>>
>> [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-09/msg00424.html
>>     
>
> Hi,
>
> As I see it, one problem of grub-extra is that it can't be compiled
> separately, so user have to setup an environment to build it, which is
> not straightforward. 
Then propose a better system. I don't find any problem with setting
GRUB_CONTRIB
> And as they have two revision system, this make
> it difficult to track previous bug. For example, it's hard to tell
> which revision of grub-extra can compile with which main stream
> revision. 
It's always latest-to-latest. And it's how it's done in Debian.
> And it's also the question of confidence, I don't see anyone
> claim responsibility for grub-extra, it' more like a garbage dump to
> me. It's hard to convince others to send patches on something that's
> not actively maintained.
>   
The same code wouldn't have recieved more attention if it was in the
mainline.
You can pretty much say nobody looks into hello/hello.c but is it a
reason to tell it garbage.
I personally handle grub-extras the same way as GRUB2
Actually the same people that take care of mainline also take care of
grub-extras. I also have two new things on the queue for grub-extras:
LUKS and gPXE import.


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature