On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:24:08PM -0500, Bruce O. Benson wrote:
> > As soon as I see a bootloader that uses Lua as its scripting/config
> engine,
> > I'm switching to it.
>
> We have LUA support for GRUB. It's in grub-extras.
>
>
Exactly.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM, 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.
>
Is there a URL for BURG yet?
As soon as I see a bootloader that uses Lua as its scripting/config engine,
I'm switching
Bean wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
>> 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-lat
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 03:34:27AM +0800, Bean wrote:
>
> 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,
Why? Modules from grub-extras can be compiled in-tree just as fine.
> And as they have two revis
Bean wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Robert Millan 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 ma
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Robert Millan 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
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] th
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> 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
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> 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.
>
> IO
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
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
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:08:24AM -0800, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > 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 whe
Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Robert Millan 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
Am Freitag, den 13.11.2009, 00:08 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Robert Millan 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
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Robert Millan 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 t
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 07:38:01PM -0800, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was very excited to see Ubuntu 9.10 being one of the first distributions to
> officially switch to GRUB v2, but there was one fly in that ointment
> of happiness -- the lack of Lua scripting :-(
>
> Browsing the archive
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
>> I'd appreciated knowing non-licensing reasons as well.
>>
> The only other reason was to encourage developpement of sh-like scripting.
Fair enough. Would it be, then, fair to say that Lua was never meant to be
a script
Am Mittwoch, den 11.11.2009, 10:13 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 19:38 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> >> Browsing the archives of grub-devel reveals that Lua support was moved to
> >> grub-extras
Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>
>> Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 19:38 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
>>
>>> Browsing the archives of grub-devel reveals that Lua support was moved to
>>> grub-extras which makes me ask these two ques
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 19:38 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
>> Browsing the archives of grub-devel reveals that Lua support was moved to
>> grub-extras which makes me ask these two questions:
>> 1. Was the decision to move Lua
Am Dienstag, den 10.11.2009, 19:38 -0800 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> Browsing the archives of grub-devel reveals that Lua support was moved to
> grub-extras which makes me ask these two questions:
> 1. Was the decision to move Lua based exclusively on the licensing
> concerns?
I don't think i
Hi!
I was very excited to see Ubuntu 9.10 being one of the first distributions to
officially switch to GRUB v2, but there was one fly in that ointment
of happiness -- the lack of Lua scripting :-(
Browsing the archives of grub-devel reveals that Lua support was moved to
grub-extras which makes me
22 matches
Mail list logo
