Make the .opk as the default file extension

Holger Freyther zecke at
Mon Jul 28 19:57:58 CEST 2008

On Monday 28 July 2008 12:37:07 Richard Purdie wrote:
> Hi Tick,
> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 17:52 +0800, Tick Chen wrote:
> >   Since we forked the opkg from ipkg, it make people confuses as we are
> > still using .ipk as the file extension. So I created this patch to make
> > the .opk as the default file extension of packages.
> > The new opkg still supports .ipk files.
> Can I advise against this in the strongest possible way.

Yes you can,

> Why?
> 1. This "cosmetic" change is going to have massive implications for our
> build systems, instead of having to deal with one extension we now have
> to deal with both and make sure they are handled equally. This will mean
> updating a load of tools and then having to scan for both file
> extensions. It raises questions about issues like what if both a .opk
> and .ipk are present?

	breaking existing stuff:
		- The patch allows Openmoko to call the package whatever we want
		- The patch is not forcing anyone to call the package xyz
		- The patch in opkg-utils will continue to create ipk files... my failure to 
propose it the otherwise around. :)

	two files:
		- We have the same issue already. What opkg-utils does is to look at the 
content of files. We look at the header and extract the data from it. So if 
you have two different files, e.g. a.ipk and b.ipk with the same "Name" in 
the control.tar.gz it will pick one file and move the other to the morgue.
If you have two feeds with the same PN you are in the same situation already. 
By definition if you have a PN with a PV and PR it is supposed to be the 
same. I don't think by introducing a new file ending we introduce any new 
problems here.

> 2. There are also the political implications. People will assume .opk is
> somehow superior to .opk and put pressure for everyone to change. Anyone
> who doesn't will be seen as "backward". Forcing everyone into this
> change isn't desirable.
> I'd have no objection to a new extension if it was for a good reason
> such as a file format change. Just changing the extension for the sake
> of it seems pointless given the disruption it will cause though.

Openmoko wants to call the packages opk, I think this is legitimate. But I 
don't think the political implication is present. Everytime when installing 
mc I have to edit the mc.ext of midnight commander because it is using the 
old format ipk (tar.gz). So the renaming allows me to fix that. AFAIK OpenWRT 
is happily using old style ipk so I don't think there is any kind 
of "backward" thinkng out there.

I think it is fine for poky, angstrom, any other distro to stick with the 
current new style packages called "ipk" and we force no one to change the 
name of packages. opkg supported ipk and deb, adding a new extension does not 
change much.

> Please think very carefully about this change and its implications.

I think we as in Openmoko really want this. I'm fine with carrying external 
patches around, if that helps to avoid a fork, but I don't think this would 
change anything at all.

Yes, the only mistake I did was to propose to tick to make "opk" the default 
filename and break existing users (poky) and I think that part is fixed and 
I'm sorry for that.

sorry I'm a bit tired at the moment but wanted to finish this reply.


More information about the opkg-devel mailing list