Re: Lua for sysinst, next steps?
Izumi Tsutsui <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.installation,gmane.os.netbsd.devel.userlevel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
martin@ wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:06:25AM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: > > So what should be the next steps? There are probably (hopefully...) > > some folks around that want to step in and help with coding, so that > > would mean to commit it, but then are of course as always those that say > > "please don't commit until it is finished and polished" ;) So I am > > stalled now. > > I don't see why this shouldn't be commited - it basically is a complete > first phase (not sure what other polishing would be needed), and you can > deal with further phases on a branch. If we can disable sysinst Lua support by USE_LUA=no, I think it's okay to commit to head. I could also help to fix possible Tier-II breakage. (unless buildability persons complain daily failure) But if we can provide test install images/isos with Lua enabled sysinst (by "build.sh release install-image iso-image" or so) before commit it will also help reviewers. --- Izumi Tsutsui