Make the .opk as the default file extension

Tick Chen tick at
Mon Jul 28 20:40:43 CEST 2008

Hi Richard, 
   Thank you to point out it may cause many trouble on OE. And I had
switch the opkg-util default creating the .ipk extension. 
   I feel sorry that I did not send the mail out discussing enough on 
the community. I got the command, and then did it without discuss on the
mailing list. It's my fault. I get the lesson, and sorry about that.  
  The origional problem is the consistence of opkg supports .ipk but not
.opk makes a lot of people confused. It's a small thing but people is
always confusing. In order to make it less confusing, We want to make
opkg support .opk, and keep maintaining this. 
   After getting this command, I think we should keep support ipkg and
dealing with the coexists of .ipk and .opk. In opkg and opkg-utils it's
just few lines of code. Thanks for you pointing out that if I put opkg as
default may cause many other projects problems, and so that I switch it
back. I don't want to cause problems to other projects, thank you to
remind me this. And thank you for pointing out the political influence
of the .opk. The decision came from political issues, and prehaps we
can find out one way everyone happy about it by discussions. Please be
flameless, thanks. 


On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:37:07AM +0100, 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.
> 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?
> 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.
> Please think very carefully about this change and its implications.
> Regards,
> Richard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the opkg-devel mailing list