Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

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 /.)