Re: [PATCH] [UPDATE 2] More enhanced GNU GRUB program name transformations

[Hollis Blanchard <hollis@penguinppc.org>]

On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:30 +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> Hi Hollis,
> 
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 19:01 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:20 -0600, Jerone Young wrote:
> > > 
> > > This patch is derived from the patch sent earlier by Lubomir Kundrak.
> > > What this patch adds is for library directories and directories in
> > > /boot to be changed as well. So the user can easily launch
> > > 
> > > ./configure --program-transform-name="s/grub/grub2/" 
> > 
> > This seems a little over-engineered to me. Why not just rename all the
> > grub2 stuff to be "grub2-*" to begin with?
> 
> Do you think it is a good practice to rename the program names by
> default? In my opinion is not the good place to tell what version of the
> program the binary belongs to. This technique is commonly used to
> separate versions of software when more than one version it is in use --
> temporarily, till it gets wider acceptance.

So users will have both grub-* and grub2-* installed? When grub2 is the
default, they and all their scripts will need to learn to run grub2-*
instead of grub-*. Then one day grub1 will be removed, grub2 will be
renamed to grub-*, and the user must learn this and all those tools will
need to be reverted to call grub-* again?

I don't think changing the name more than once is a good idea. And if
we're only going to change it once, let's just do it and avoid this
transform stuff.

> That's why I think it is
> good that it is configurable. Additionally we merely use autoconf's
> feature, not add or invent new stuff, so it hardly can be called
> over-engineering.

All those | sed "$(transform)" additions don't look like an autoconf
feature to me...

-Hollis