[needs-packaging] debpkg

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Debpkg is a command-line tool for downloading and installing Debian packages
from URLs. This tool simplifies the process of installing .deb packages by
handling the download and installation in one command.

This is a very early version 0.0.1 and will have lots more features
later that hopefully simplify Debian packaging related actions.

URL: https://salsa.debian.org/otto/debpkg
License: Expat

Debian ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1121599

This was initially uploaded to Debian NEW in November, 2025, but decided to upload now in parellel to Ubuntu too as the Debian NEW queue is processed by just one person and it takes months for packages to get through.

[Otto Kekäläinen (otto)]

Test PPA (build with resolute-proposed) with passing builds visible at https://launchpad.net/~otto/+archive/ubuntu/debpkg/+builds?build_text=&build_state=all

Salsa CI for Ubuntu with builds and autopkgtest also passing at https://salsa.debian.org/otto/debpkg/-/pipelines/993458

[Otto Kekäläinen (otto)]

Sponsor: fetch sources with `gbp clone --debian-branch=ubuntu/26.04-resolute https://salsa.debian.org/otto/debpkg.git; cd debpkg; git checkout ubuntu/26.04-resolute`

[Robie Basak (racb)]

This looks straightforward enough to sponsor. I wonder about the name though. debpkg (so installing into /usr/bin/debpkg then?) sounds like dpkg to anyone not already very familiar with Debian, but performs a completely different function. Will Debian ftpmasters consider that as part of their management of the filesystem namespace, and if they ask for a change, would this end up with a divergence in Ubuntu accidentally?

Is there an overlap with gdebi(1) here, which perhaps could be enhanced to also support URLs?

For the above two reasons I'm unwilling to sponsor ahead of Debian, but this is a weak opinion and I have no objection to someone else doing it.

[Otto Kekäläinen (otto)]

Thanks for comment! I understand the concern about the name being generic, but I intend to evolve this into a tool with many generic .deb package related functions. The namespace is free, so it should be allowed to be used. There was many years ago another debpkg but it is no longer maintained and it is removed, and it didn't end up on any reserved namespace lists, so this should be fine now too.

[Robie Basak (racb)]

That sounds fine to me! I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of Ubuntu ending up with a divergence if changes happen in Debian before it arrives there, and then getting stuck with that in Resolute for a long time. If Debian take it as-is then it would be fine of course.

[Otto Kekäläinen (otto)]

If Debian rejects due to the name, I will rename the package in both. With current versioning and git repo layout the Debian version is "native" and this Ubuntu version foreign.

Main reason to have this in Ubuntu *now* is to avoid being stuck on Debian NEW and get start getting users and real-world feedback as I develop this feature by feature.

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.