Hi everybody, after some years of absence I'm back using CRUX. I got sick of all those pinko ponko distros which have one thing in common: bloat. Because of the fact that things didn't changed drastically, I ask, if there has been any development regarding to share packages? Another thing which I (still) dislike a little bit are the inconsistent naming conventions of the few utilities managing the ports and packages. There is ports, prt-* and pkg*. The naming convention of prt-* utilities seems to be grown evolutionary as counterpart to apt-* of debian? The pkg* naming convention seems to have its roots in slackware and *BSD? The ports utility seem to have its roots in CRUX itself... This is not a big deal, but I would pretty much like to rename those tools being consistent or to refactor them to some extend. I don't care how it is done, e.g. 1) pkg-{add,info,mk,rm}, prt-{get,cache}, ports -> prt-{list,update,diff} 2) prt{get,cache}, ports -> prt{list,update,diff} I'm not sure about splitting ports into pieces, but what I really dislike is typing prt-get on the one side and pkgmk on the other... I'd vote for prtget and prtcache at least ;) Last thing for this mail: Simone, did you continued the uCRUX development? I pretty much dislike GNU libc and would be glad to use uClibc or dietlibc at least for those parts of CRUX which compile fine with them... I tried to build a linux from scratch using a uclibc toolchain, and it got quite far (I even compile X11R7.1 with uClibc, some ioctl-related issues needed to be patched) - but I'm not sure it is a good idea to enforce everything to use a non-glibc environment, that's why I ask if some other would like to see such development that those tools which compile fine use a C library with at least clutter as possible. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361