Re: [RFC] rename update-grub to update-grubcfg

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:50:19PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> 
> I have now read over the old thread, I was just too lazy first and it
> was half a year old anyway.
> Okuji suggested grub-update-config too.
> 
> Personally as a user I would still prefer update-grub* and even
> install-grub
> Because you are update'ing grub's config and installing grub
> grub-mkdevicemap and grub-probe make sense that way
> make device map for grub
> probe for a grub device
> 
> Though yes for consistency everything grub-* would be better.
> It's just like Robert already said on the old thread, Debian people know
> it as update-grub from grub-legacy.
> 
> So there should be some update-grub wrapper/stub for a while, with a
> hint that it's deprecated now.

Since we're going for a change, why not fix the CLI while at it?

It'd be much more flexible and consistent if the command was meant to
*generate* a grub.cfg rather than update the canonical /boot/grub/grub.cfg.

This way, one could implement update-grub as, say:

  #!/bin/bash
  grub-mkconfig > /boot/grub/grub.cfg

  (oversimplified, but you get the point)

or be able to do other kind of magic, like:

  #!/bin/bash
  grub-mkconfig > /boot/grub/grub.cfg.autogen

and then let user choose if they want their grub.cfg to be a symlink to
grub.cfg.autogen or a standalone, user-editted file (this is a common user
request).

Then we could provide an update-grub implementation, or leave it to
distributors like Debian to do it for the sake of backwards
compatibility.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."