Back to CRUX

Anselm R. Garbe arg at
Thu Oct 5 11:04:49 UTC 2006

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:

Because of the fact that things didn't changed drastically, I
ask, if there has been any development regarding to share

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

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.

 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361

More information about the CRUX mailing list