On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:30 +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote: > Hi Hollis, > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 19:01 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 00:20 -0600, Jerone Young wrote: > > > > > > This patch is derived from the patch sent earlier by Lubomir Kundrak. > > > What this patch adds is for library directories and directories in > > > /boot to be changed as well. So the user can easily launch > > > > > > ./configure --program-transform-name="s/grub/grub2/" > > > > This seems a little over-engineered to me. Why not just rename all the > > grub2 stuff to be "grub2-*" to begin with? > > Do you think it is a good practice to rename the program names by > default? In my opinion is not the good place to tell what version of the > program the binary belongs to. This technique is commonly used to > separate versions of software when more than one version it is in use -- > temporarily, till it gets wider acceptance.
So users will have both grub-* and grub2-* installed? When grub2 is the default, they and all their scripts will need to learn to run grub2-* instead of grub-*. Then one day grub1 will be removed, grub2 will be renamed to grub-*, and the user must learn this and all those tools will need to be reverted to call grub-* again? I don't think changing the name more than once is a good idea. And if we're only going to change it once, let's just do it and avoid this transform stuff. > That's why I think it is > good that it is configurable. Additionally we merely use autoconf's > feature, not add or invent new stuff, so it hardly can be called > over-engineering. All those | sed "$(transform)" additions don't look like an autoconf feature to me... -Hollis _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
