Re: Changing package file extension

[Søren Hauberg]

tor, 22 01 2009 kl. 12:27 -0500, skrev John W. Eaton:
> On  2-Nov-2008, Soren Hauberg wrote:
> 
> | 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?
> 
> I don't have any objection to a change like this if it helps to
> eliminate confusion.

I think it would eliminate some confusions, but would it introduce new
ones? Would it be a problem for people who upload package files to
internet servers, that the file extension is unknown to the server?

Anyway, if we make such a change what would be a suitable extension?
'.octpkg' ?

Also, it might be worth mentioning that R seems to use '.tar.gz'.

Soren