Re: Rename update-grub to grub-update?

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

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 /.)