<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.8.5">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 22:37 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 22 March 2016 at 21:56, Saul Wold <<A HREF="mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com">sgw@linux.intel.com</A>> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
> | linux-firmware-iwlwifi-7265D<BR>
> | *** Error: Package name contains illegal characters, (other than<BR>
> [a-z0-9.+-])<BR>
><BR>
Gah, no CAPS? Sorry I did not do the full package specturm tests.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Yeah... tempting to file a bug against opkg!<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
That restriction comes from opkg's Debian roots. See:<BR>
<BR>
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Source
<BR>
"Package names (both source and binary, see <A HREF="https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Package">Package</A><A HREF="https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Package">, Section 5.6.7</A>) must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character."<BR>
<BR>
So, I don't think that filing against opkg is likely to produce any useful result because the opkg maintainer will probably argue (correctly) that it is operating as designed. On the other hand, there's no reason that package_ipk couldn't be taught how to massage otherwise-illegal package names into a format that opkg-build will accept, and I think there might even be some precedent for that sort of thing in OE already.<BR>
<BR>
But on the third hand, we've lived with this restriction for more than a decade, we don't seem to have exhausted the namespace of lower-case letters, and I haven't seen any other particularly compelling reason for wanting to use capitals in package names. So personally I would leave it alone.<BR>
<BR>
p.<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>