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. http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77123575 > > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- Lorn 'ljp' Potter Software Engineer, Systems Group, Trolltech, a Nokia company _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
