Re: Changing package file extension

[Bill Denney]

Thomas Treichl wrote:
> Søren Hauberg schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>   Every once in a while (like just a second ago), we get users that
>> can't figure out how to install packages. Basically, they start out by
>> extracting the file. I'm guessing they do this because either they
>> always do that to .tar.gz, or because their browser suggest that they do
>> this during download. After they've extracted the package, they either
>> have a .tar file or a directory, and they can't install that with 'pkg'.
>>   So, perhaps it would be a good idea to change the file extension of
>> packages? I mean, a file should be named
>>
>>   image-1.0.6.octpkg
>>
>> (or something similar) instead of
>>
>>   image-1.0.6.tar.gz
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
> What about keeping *.3 characters and say eg.
>   image-1.0.6.opf
> for 'Octave Package Format'? Just a quick thought.

Hi Thomas,

First, I don't have an opinion about giving a new extension in general. 
Second...

The only system that I can think of that would require 3 characters is
DOS (not even Windows).  While .octpkg is not immediately obvious to
people who don't know about octave they could guess that it's a package
of something.  Also, almost every TLA (three letter acronym) is already
taken.  In this case, opf is already taken by a couple of different
image formats, genetic data, and amusingly enough "open package format"
for ebooks (http://filext.com/file-extension/OPF and
http://www.openebook.org/2007/opf/OPF_2.0_final_spec.html).

I realize that the above comes off strong, and I don't mean for it to be
quite as harsh as it comes out, but I just don't think that we should
limit ourselves to file name restrictions that were only required on an
(almost) obsolete operating system that Octave doesn't even support.

Have a good day,

Bill