LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/)
-   -   Ubuntu Package Naming Suggestion (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/ubuntu-package-naming-suggestion-659601/)

Mr. Swillis 07-31-2008 06:07 PM

Ubuntu Package Naming Suggestion
 
Ubuntu really needs to kill the ".deb" extension on their packages. They aren't all fully compatible with Debian anyway. Since all the newbie's flock to this distro, I'm suggesting ".n00b" as the new extension.

Swill

johnson_steve 07-31-2008 09:59 PM

Um. that's not going to happen. the packages are .deb files because Ubuntu uses Debian's apt-get package manager. they don't all have to work with Debian (though I've never had a problem installing software from Debian's repositories on Ubuntu.) in fact since I have apt-get on my apple iPod guess what the packages end with: surprise .deb; it doesn't even matter that not only are they compiled for an arm cpu, but they are not even for a linux OS. you couldn't install them on anything other then an iPhone or iPod touch but it's still a .deb file.

Mr. Swillis 07-31-2008 10:14 PM

Yeah, Debian packages work fine in Ubuntu, because Ubuntu get's it's packages from Debian. Then they hack them and they don't work so well upstream... that's kinda the point. Also, I am quite aware that Ubuntu uses Debian's package manager.. that's the point of this whole thread.

Swill

jay73 08-01-2008 12:18 AM

So what is your point? Try to install the same rpm on Mandriva, Fedora and Suse, it often won't work all that well. Should we now have three different extensions?

ErV 08-01-2008 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis (Post 3232583)
Ubuntu really needs to kill the ".deb" extension on their packages. They aren't all fully compatible with Debian anyway. Since all the newbie's flock to this distro, I'm suggesting ".n00b" as the new extension.

Swill

I you think it'll improve distribution in any way, you should submit your thoughts to distribution maintainers, not here.

archtoad6 08-01-2008 01:46 AM

johnson_steve's #2 above is the answer.

In case he wasn't clear, .deb refers to the package management system NOT the distro. As long as the *buntus use APT, the extension should, & probably will, be .deb. If you think this is confusing because other distros (the *buntus, MEPIS, antiX Xandros, Linspire, etc.) use the Debian APT system, then the appropriate suggestion is rename the packages ".apt", & the place to make that suggestion is to Debian, not Ubuntu.

If a pkg. is distro specific, then the correct way to indicate that is in its full name.
From my slightly outdated MEPIS 6.0 box (which uses the Dapper repos):
Code:

# ls /var/cache/apt/archives/  | head
acroread_7.0.1-0.0.ubuntu1_i386.deb
amarok_2%3a1.4.3-0ubuntu8~dapper1_i386.deb
amarok-xine_2%3a1.4.3-0ubuntu8~dapper1_i386.deb
apache_1.3.34-2_i386.deb
apache2-utils_2.0.55-4ubuntu2.3_i386.deb
apache-common_1.3.34-2_i386.deb
apt_0.6.43.3ubuntu3_i386.deb
aptitude_0.4.0-5ubuntu3_i386.deb
aptitude-doc-en_0.4.0-5ubuntu3_all.deb
apt-utils_0.6.43.3ubuntu3_i386.deb


As you should expect, Linux (Unix) file extensions indicate the type of file, not the platform it is built for. -- Would you expect a Vista .exe or .dll to be guaranteed to work on XP, W2k, or PC-DOS 3.0?

brianL 08-01-2008 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis (Post 3232583)
Since all the newbie's flock to this distro, I'm suggesting ".n00b" as the new extension.

Swill

Just another dumb example of distro snobbery. Not all Ubuntu users are newbies. Donald Knuth, for example?

Mr. Swillis 08-01-2008 11:40 AM

Quote:

So what is your point? Try to install the same rpm on Mandriva, Fedora and Suse, it often won't work all that well. Should we now have three different extensions?
Mmm, no. The rpm example doesn't match the deb example I'm trying to illustrate. Mandrake, Suse, etc just use the rpm package mechanism, they don't steal the actual Red Hat packages every 6 months. They have the skills to build their own packages. Heck, they each even have their own "package manager" (Yast, urpmi, etc). Therefore, they have earned the right not to be flamed by me.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, uses the Sweat Shop approach and has Debian do all the hard work for them (for the low low cost of nothing). Then they snatch that work every 6 months, patch it up, market it, and make money off of it. "But... Ubuntu is still free". Yes, I understand that, but trust me... they're still making money off it.

Swill

johnson_steve 08-01-2008 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis (Post 3233412)
Ubuntu, on the other hand, uses the Sweat Shop approach and has Debian do all the hard work for them (for the low low cost of nothing). Then they snatch that work every 6 months, patch it up, market it, and make money off of it. "But... Ubuntu is still free". Yes, I understand that, but trust me... they're still making money off it.

Swill

Have you even read the GPL? Debian didn't write that software either; they gathered it, patched it a bit, compiled it and packaged it in a .deb file. Ubuntu offers a valuable service to the community. they make a nice user friendly linux distro that makes it easier for people to migrate over from windows, and yes just like any opensource project it is built upon the hard work of others. I hope they are making money; it just goes to demonstrate that you can get rich off software without charging people to use it.

jomen 08-01-2008 12:05 PM

Do you want to change the proposed new and distinctive file-extension for Ubuntu to ".cheap" or ".snatch" now?

Mr. Swillis 08-01-2008 01:37 PM

Actually, ".snatch" is a great fit! However, I really just posted this to get a rise out of people and no one is really participating on either of the intended sides (Ubuntu or Debian), so it's lost its flare to me. Oh well...

Swill

PKraszewski 08-01-2008 02:05 PM

And what about derivatives of commercial distros, that follow the exactly same pattern of "stealing" (phew, what a disgusting word) packages?

* SUSE<->openSUSE
* RedHat<->Fedora
* Solaris<->openSolaris

to name just a few donor/acceptor pairs...

And DO NOT forget, that Ubuntu from technical point of view IS NOT Debian derivative - it IS debian/sid. Call it "sid with polished edges". Want a proof? Look at the "/etc/debian_version" contents.

mccwho 08-02-2008 02:46 AM

Whats the point?
 
Why try to get a rise out of people?????????

Thats the point of GPL, its open.
Over all, the entire linux community benefits, regardless of distro.

Its pointless to quibble about one distro using another's source code for there own use (again GPL). If you don't like it you can side with MicroSucks in trying to control open source.

But you'll lose. "Open Source" is here to stay, and stay open.

johnson_steve 08-02-2008 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis (Post 3233549)
However, I really just posted this to get a rise out of people and no one is really participating on either of the intended sides (Ubuntu or Debian), so it's lost its flare to me. Oh well...
Swill

Ah, to think if I had looked up I would have noticed that bridge.

Mr. Swillis 08-02-2008 09:07 PM

Quote:

* SUSE<->openSUSE
* RedHat<->Fedora
* Solaris<->openSolaris

to name just a few donor/acceptor pairs.

Actually, none of those pairs is a valid example. Each of your "Acceptors" is sponsored by the corresponding donor. In the case of Ubuntu and Debian, there is no such relationship. Trust me, the Debian community is quite strict about its packaging policies, and there is no way they would stamp their seal of approval on what Mark Shuttleworth is doing.

Swill


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 PM.