Rename update-grub to grub-update?

Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Pavel Roskin]

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?

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Tuesday 12 February 2008 06:51, 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?

If you rename it, I want to select a more appropriate name, such as 
grub-update-config. The current name doesn't tell me what it will update.

Okuji

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Franklin PIAT]

I had't read this thread when I posted my email "comments
about /etc/default/grub"

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 08:23 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 06:51, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> If you rename it, I want to select a more appropriate name, such as 
> grub-update-config. The current name doesn't tell me what it will update.

What about renaming /etc/default/grub as /etc/grub-update-config.cfg ?

Franklin

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Robert Millan]

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Pavel Roskin]

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

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Pavel Roskin]

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 08:23 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008 06:51, 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?
> 
> If you rename it, I want to select a more appropriate name, such as 
> grub-update-config. The current name doesn't tell me what it will update.

Fine with me.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Robert Millan]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:37:26PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> 
> 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.

update-grub never was really distribution-specific.  Someone wrote it for
Debian ages ago, when they could have tried to cooperate with GRUB maintainers
like I did, but that's all.

> > 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.

Debian has:

/etc/kernel-img.conf:postinst_hook = update-grub
/etc/kernel-img.conf:postrm_hook = update-grub

which as you can guess it's a PITA to update in maintainer scripts (I
already went through this once).

In addition, a number of packages that provide GRUB add-ons (memtest86,
grub-invaders, desktop-base) have started providing update-grub hooks
and calling that script in their scripts.  This behaviour is GRUB 2 specific
(the older update-grub was a monolithic script with all the cruft), and AFAICT
to the date only in Debian, but there's no reason it can't be merged with
their upstreams.

All in all, even if you want to change it I think there should be a smooth
transition that doesn't break current usage.

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Robert Millan]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:34:51PM +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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

On a second thought, this wouldn't be much of an issue if Debian can have its
own "update-grub" which wraps around "grub-mkconfig" or whatever you want to
call it.

Additionally, this would allow us to change the CLI to something that doesn't
hardcode /boot/grub/grub.cfg and provides greater flexibility, e.g.:

  grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg

which is also useful for Debian.

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Pavel Roskin]

On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 14:10 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:

> On a second thought, this wouldn't be much of an issue if Debian can have its
> own "update-grub" which wraps around "grub-mkconfig" or whatever you want to
> call it.
> 
> Additionally, this would allow us to change the CLI to something that doesn't
> hardcode /boot/grub/grub.cfg and provides greater flexibility, e.g.:
> 
>   grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg
> 
> which is also useful for Debian.

Fine with me.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin