ipkg vs. opkg

Lorn Potter lpotter at trolltech.com
Thu Jul 31 06:50:21 CEST 2008

kd8ikt wrote:
> Lorn Potter wrote:
>> Werner Almesberger wrote:
>>> There's been a brief but heated discussion on one of our internal
>>> lists on the change from .ipk to .opk. Let me join the flame fest
>>> by 1) dragging this into this more public space, and 2) professing
>>> my ignorance:
>>> In the discussion it was explained that the file formats .deb,
>>> .ipk, and .opk are identical, and that this was just what seems to
>>> be a very misguided attempt at name branding. (I only now realize
>>> that the "o" in "opkg" was supposed to come from "Openmoko", not
>>> "other".)
>>> However, I wonder if there are any other differences beyond the
>>> mere format. E.g., could systems that use dpkg, ipkg, or opkg
>>> actually install .deb, .ipk, or .opk packages (provided that
>>> they're built for the respective architecture), or are there
>>> other differences beyond just the package format that would cause
>>> this to fail or to cause other problems (such as putting invalid
>>> metadata into the local package database) ?
>>> If .opk is identical to .ipk for all practical purposes, then I
>>> don't think this is a good change and it may not be too late to
>>> revert it. If we look at, say, RPM-based systems, they all use
>>> .rpm and don't try to create arbitrary divisions by using
>>> distribution-specific names.
>>> I also don't know what is actually the difference between opkg
>>> and ipkg. I just thought it's somehow "better" without affecting
>>> the core functionality. Could anyone please explain ? I think I
>>> may not be the only one confused :-)
>> "IPKG" is a trademarked name, and you will have to license it for use from George France. (sorta 
>> like the Firefox/Ice Weasel issue, but different)
>> There is a lot of contention between community members and George France/handhelds.org, one of them 
>> being this issue.
> i think you're mistaken ipkg is licensed under the gpl

The name IPKG is trademarked, which has nothing to do with the gpl licensing. and no, I am not mistaken.

>  i agree that ipkg should stay ipkg,i read on the wiki someone changed
> the name to opkg cause ipkg isnt actively developed? ugh well then wtf
> is opkg? a updated/modified version of ipkg for openmoko's needs, i even
> went as far as aliasing ipkg to opkg cause its a good embedded pkg
> manager and i'm already in the habit of typeing ipkg list  (openwrt).
> rename the final bin back to ipkg and dont touch the pkg filetype .ipkg
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.openmoko.org
> https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Lorn 'ljp' Potter
Software Engineer, Systems Group, Trolltech, a Nokia company

More information about the devel mailing list