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 _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
