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
Hi everybody, [...] Because of the fact that things didn't changed drastically, I ask, if there has been any development regarding to share packages? Not recently. There has been the ports DB which lists numerous ports repositories, and there's a new 'contrib' collection which collects
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*. Tools handling just packages are named pkg*, i.e. pkgmk, pkgadd, pkgrm,
Hi Anselm, On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:04:49 +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: ports from experienced users: http://crux.nu/Main/ContribRules depending on when you used CRUX for the last time one or the other may be new to you. Also, pretty much everything behind the sense change change, certain things even drastically (Per left the team, new server, CLC merged into main project, cvsup dropped as ports backend etc.). pkginfo. Those tools have no notion of a ports tree or the distribution method, i.e. pkgmk but knows just Pkgfiles. prt*, i.e. prt-get or prt-utils, use the ports tree heavily. At the same time, prt-get itself doesn't build any packages but rather calls _pkg_mk for it. There may be certain scripts which use the wrong prefix, however the basic distinction is intentional and renaming them might make the names look similar, but make no sense WRT the functionality of those tools. HTH, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:33:54 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi Anselm,
Hi everybody, [...] Because of the fact that things didn't changed drastically, I ask, if there has been any development regarding to share packages? Not recently. There has been the ports DB which lists numerous ports repositories, and there's a new 'contrib' collection which collects
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 13:04:49 +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: ports from experienced users: http://crux.nu/Main/ContribRules depending on when you used CRUX for the last time one or the other may be new to you.
Also, pretty much everything behind the sense change change, read: "pretty much everything behind the scenes changed"
Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
On 10/05/06 13:04 Anselm R. Garbe wrote: Hi,
Last thing for this mail: Simone, did you continued the uCRUX development?
Not in the form of a full CRUX port. I've been working on an uclibc based CRUX lookalike for my job lately, specifically intended for booting from usb/CF/SD. Since we aimed for a compact setup, we simply used busybox and added the very few packages (<10) we needed.
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.
I came to the conclusion that for my current needings a complete uclibc port of CRUX would be overkill, but I'm sure there are other people interested in it out there. -- Simone Rota Bergamo, Italy - http://www.varlock.com
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 13:04 +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
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?
I agree that some of the utilities in prt-utils are less useful than others (e.g. prtcreate), and it'd be nice to see it trimmed down a bit.
The pkg* naming convention seems to have its roots in slackware and *BSD? The ports utility seem to have its roots in CRUX itself...
SunOS uses pkgadd, pkgrm, ... as their package management tools. They're much more bloated than Per's pkgutils, though.
participants (4)
-
Anselm R. Garbe -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Mark Rosenstand -
Simone Rota