Make the .opk as the default file extension

Álvaro Lopes alvieboy at
Mon Jul 28 20:35:42 CEST 2008

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> Am Montag 28 Juli 2008 18:50:31 schrieb Marek Lindner:
>> On Tuesday, 29. July 2008 00:36:16 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't understand that comment. You surely don't want to indicate
>>> that changing the extension from .ipkg to .opkg has any effect on
>>> usability whatsoever -- especially given the fact that the 'user' should
>>> never see any of these extensions anyways.
>> Sorry, I don't understand your comment. You surely didn't want to indicate
>> that changing an extension is worth the call for a fork. Probably you
>> wanted to make it become a better project by sharing your constructive
>> criticism with us. You are right - we don't need to care about future
>> developers. We should avoid making it less confusing for them.
> To me, it's much more confusing that the very same file format has two 
> different extensions than that a program .foo deals with files .bar.
> Besides, do you realize the impact of this change? As Richard mentioned, it 
> will make a bunch of things really nasty. Plus, you are risking Poky and 
> OpenEmbedded no longer being able to use opkg, which would certainly be a 
> loss for Openmoko.

Why not issue a warning if a 'deprecated' extension is found ?

I'm new to this list, I wrote some packaging formats and tools, and I am a bit lost about the issue here.

I'd love if someone could quickly explain to me:

1) Why was the change needed ?
2) Does it imply changes in the internal packaging format ?
3) Can we live with both ? Or why can't we live with both ?

Remember that, for example, OO (OpenOffice) has two types of "native" file formats, and they can live with that by just "advising" users to use the new format.


> :M:
> _______________________________________________
> opkg-devel mailing list
> opkg-devel at

More information about the opkg-devel mailing list