[arch-dev-public] new grub2 package: advice needed
Hi guys, I'm preparing a new set of grub2 packages together with a user (skodabenz). We've had a rather long discussion about if we should rename 's/grub/grub2' in the package. In theory this should allow to install both grub and grub2 (chainloading, but nobody will do that anyway I suppose), but it will also make things more clear as they no longer share similar directories. - This would rename however all utilities to have grub2 in the name instead of grub. - the config directory will move to /boot/grub2 Some consequences: - people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird - previously used config file is not loaded and people get greeted by the grub command line (which is quite powerful though). We could possibly copy the old grub.cfg from the users system over to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. If we don't copy it we can blame Allan. I'm not quite sure what the best option here is. What do you think? Ronald
On 26 January 2011 03:37, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm preparing a new set of grub2 packages together with a user (skodabenz). We've had a rather long discussion about if we should rename 's/grub/grub2' in the package. In theory this should allow to install both grub and grub2 (chainloading, but nobody will do that anyway I suppose), but it will also make things more clear as they no longer share similar directories.
- This would rename however all utilities to have grub2 in the name instead of grub. - the config directory will move to /boot/grub2
Some consequences:
- people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird - previously used config file is not loaded and people get greeted by the grub command line (which is quite powerful though). We could possibly copy the old grub.cfg from the users system over to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. If we don't copy it we can blame Allan.
I'm not quite sure what the best option here is. What do you think?
What is the aim, though? From what I gather: - allow to install both grub and grub2 - make the distinction clearer Is that correct? If so, the impact from the following: - people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird Will, IMO, not be worth this rename.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 26 January 2011 03:37, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm preparing a new set of grub2 packages together with a user (skodabenz). We've had a rather long discussion about if we should rename 's/grub/grub2' in the package. In theory this should allow to install both grub and grub2 (chainloading, but nobody will do that anyway I suppose), but it will also make things more clear as they no longer share similar directories.
- This would rename however all utilities to have grub2 in the name instead of grub. - the config directory will move to /boot/grub2
Some consequences:
- people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird - previously used config file is not loaded and people get greeted by the grub command line (which is quite powerful though). We could possibly copy the old grub.cfg from the users system over to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. If we don't copy it we can blame Allan.
I'm not quite sure what the best option here is. What do you think?
What is the aim, though? From what I gather:
- allow to install both grub and grub2 - make the distinction clearer
Is that correct? If so, the impact from the following:
- people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird
Will, IMO, not be worth this rename.
That's what I was thinking, just making sure you all (or most) agree. Ronald
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 26 January 2011 03:37, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm preparing a new set of grub2 packages together with a user (skodabenz). We've had a rather long discussion about if we should rename 's/grub/grub2' in the package. In theory this should allow to install both grub and grub2 (chainloading, but nobody will do that anyway I suppose), but it will also make things more clear as they no longer share similar directories.
- This would rename however all utilities to have grub2 in the name instead of grub. - the config directory will move to /boot/grub2
Some consequences:
- people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird - previously used config file is not loaded and people get greeted by the grub command line (which is quite powerful though). We could possibly copy the old grub.cfg from the users system over to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. If we don't copy it we can blame Allan.
I'm not quite sure what the best option here is. What do you think?
What is the aim, though? From what I gather:
- allow to install both grub and grub2 - make the distinction clearer
Is that correct? If so, the impact from the following:
- people can't find their utilities anymore (searching is difficult for some) - grub2 may replace grub and switching names again would be weird
Will, IMO, not be worth this rename.
FYI, the new grub2 packages are now in [testing] using the same naming as the old grub2 package. EFI support is added and the package is split into four (common and bios are needed for a normal bios system, common and either efi-i386 or 64 bit efi if you have such a system). grub-extra features are included as well. It fixes a couple of bugs/feature request, I will close them in the next few days. Please test if everything is still working before I push it to [extra]. Ronald
participants (2)
-
Ray Rashif
-
Ronald van Haren