Hi, I am a relatively new CRUX user (I come from Gentoo and Archlinux) and I really appreciated CRUX typically slow and unobstrusive development, without overburocratized patch management system and without the need to change just to change. CRUX sometimes seems dead, just because it is following linux development without adding any complexity and obstrusity. This is why footprint mismatches should be analyzed directly by the users (something new is entering their system, they have to decide what to do) and why use flags are a way to obfuscate the way a package is built (a user should directly verify how a specific package is compiled editing the Pkgfile). Moreover, in the past six months, I have sent several observations about the way some packages are built and each one has received an answer: the aim of my remarks was never to introduce something peculiar or deviant in the way to build packages, but merely to fix mistakes. I do not see why C++ would have been so essential to the spirit of CRUX: there is no precise design or aim behind that choice, and the advantages of C over C++ are, I would say, well known. Moreover:
* (perhaps) merge with CRUX-PPC
A little distribution should not try to work on multiple architectures, because this implies a massive dissipation of efforts: CRUX is designed to work on i686 machine and should not try to be something else
* more precise and stricter packaging standards
I see no point in this, and many disadvantages affecting distros like debian, gentoo and archlinux: a huge burocracy checking unuseful stuff like the order of fields or the kind of quotation marks deployed.
* complete localisation (no --disable-nls, ...)
I do not need localizations, because their only point, besides wasting disk space, is to obfuscate the original language in which a software is thought and written. They are useful in distros aimed to newbies and casual users who are allowed to ignore english, but the experienced users of CRUX will surely know English well enough (otherwise they could not be really involved in the development of linux) and do not need to be mislead by potentially wrong translations. Other wishes are more vague and could be partially shared. But they do not require any change of mind towards an heavily organized, obstrusive way of development. So I encourage CRUX to remain largely as it is now Giorgio Lando