Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>]

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 12:34 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:51:13AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > All grub binaries installed in $prefix/bin and $prefix/sbin start with  
> > "grub-" except mbchk and update-grub.  mbchk is probably not meant to  
> > be grub specific, but update-grub is.
> > 
> > I think it would be logical to rename update-grub to grub-update.  
> > Objections?
> 
> I picked this name for historical reasons, since it was aimed at replacing
> a Debian-specific script that performed the same functionality.

Fedora has grubby, which manages not only GRUB configuration, but also
configuration files for lilo, elilo and yaboot.  I never needed to run
it manually.  I expect it to support GRUB 2 when it's adopted by Fedora.

I would actually prefer to avoid outright replacement of an existing
distribution-specific tool.  Debian could continue installing
update-grub, perhaps as a wrapper for grub-update or whatever we call
our utility.

> Calling it "update-grub" has a big advantage: for many GRUB Legacy users,
> when seeing a script called like this they will instantly know what it
> does.

I think grub-update is just as descriptive, and grub-update-config even
more so.  I don't think Debian users actually need to run update-grub
manually.  Any good distribution should provide /sbin/installkernel,
which would be run when a new kernel is being installed.

> That aside, I agree the name is quite unfortunate.  What would you think of
> postponing this untill GRUB Legacy has been replaced?  It's already a big leap
> to migrate from GRUB Legacy to GRUB 2;  I suggest we don't make it bigger yet.

I don't insist on the change.  But please consider my arguments.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin