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 revision system, this make
> it difficult to track previous bug.
I've been looking into migrating grub-extras to Bazaar, but haven't found
the time. Would it help if I do this?
> 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.
I think you're presenting the problem in a way that can't have any possible
solution:
- I made an open offer to anyone who would want to maintain LUA in
grub-extras. You weren't interested.
- Now you say that you made a fork of GRUB because LUA in grub-extras
isn't being properly maintained.
I'm afraid I can't help you there. If you have other reasons for this, feel
free to explain them, and maybe we can find a solution.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
