LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-31-2008, 06:07 PM   #1
Mr. Swillis
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 94

Rep: Reputation: 16
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
 
Old 07-31-2008, 09:59 PM   #2
johnson_steve
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: BrewCity, USA (Milwaukee, WI)
Distribution: Xubuntu 9.10, Gentoo 2.6.27 (AMD64), Darwin 9.0.0 (arm)
Posts: 1,152

Rep: Reputation: 46
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.
 
Old 07-31-2008, 10:14 PM   #3
Mr. Swillis
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 94

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 16
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
 
Old 08-01-2008, 12:18 AM   #4
jay73
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.04, Debian testing
Posts: 5,019

Rep: Reputation: 130Reputation: 130
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?
 
Old 08-01-2008, 12:33 AM   #5
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis View Post
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.
 
Old 08-01-2008, 01:46 AM   #6
archtoad6
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Houston, TX (usa)
Distribution: MEPIS, Debian, Knoppix,
Posts: 4,727
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 231Reputation: 231Reputation: 231
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?
 
Old 08-01-2008, 05:49 AM   #7
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,039
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis View Post
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?
 
Old 08-01-2008, 11:40 AM   #8
Mr. Swillis
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 94

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 16
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
 
Old 08-01-2008, 11:54 AM   #9
johnson_steve
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: BrewCity, USA (Milwaukee, WI)
Distribution: Xubuntu 9.10, Gentoo 2.6.27 (AMD64), Darwin 9.0.0 (arm)
Posts: 1,152

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis View Post
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.

Last edited by johnson_steve; 08-01-2008 at 11:55 AM.
 
Old 08-01-2008, 12:05 PM   #10
jomen
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Leipzig/Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,687

Rep: Reputation: 54
Do you want to change the proposed new and distinctive file-extension for Ubuntu to ".cheap" or ".snatch" now?
 
Old 08-01-2008, 01:37 PM   #11
Mr. Swillis
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 94

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 16
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
 
Old 08-01-2008, 02:05 PM   #12
PKraszewski
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Kubuntu. OpenBSD, openSUSE, openSolaris
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
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.
 
Old 08-02-2008, 02:46 AM   #13
mccwho
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Columbus
Distribution: RH, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandrevia
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
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.
 
Old 08-02-2008, 04:14 AM   #14
johnson_steve
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: BrewCity, USA (Milwaukee, WI)
Distribution: Xubuntu 9.10, Gentoo 2.6.27 (AMD64), Darwin 9.0.0 (arm)
Posts: 1,152

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Swillis View Post
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.
 
Old 08-02-2008, 09:07 PM   #15
Mr. Swillis
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 94

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 16
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
 
  


Reply

Tags
troll


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Package Naming Conventions and upgradpkg MQMan Slackware 5 03-27-2007 02:57 AM
Need a suggestion for a lightweight powerpoint package shahgols Linux - Software 3 12-31-2006 05:15 PM
Is there a way to have grub translate its own naming to naming scheme under Linux zhjim Linux - Software 6 05-28-2006 08:09 AM
mail server the naming naming convention problem kashan Linux - Newbie 0 07-16-2004 02:08 PM
rpm package naming conventions (mandrake) Meriadoc Linux - Newbie 4 05-16-2004 06:34 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration