On Wednesday 09 March 2005 03:00 pm, Chad Walstrom wrote: > Dave Carlson wrote: > > Linux *does* require GNU software to run or build (the GNU compiler > > collection, and, as a good userland example, libc) > > I don't believe the kernel itself requires glibc, It doesn't ('userland'). uClibc is a good alternative - itself requiring GCC to build. > and even the gcc > requirements are subject to discussion. Historically, this is probably > true, but is it true today? In any case, *most* Linux installations > have certainly been built on GNU tools and libraries. Linux only compiles on gcc, as far as I'm aware. The README only speaks of gcc 2.95.3 (but the gcc requirement definitely is there) - certainly some compiler maker could hack their compiler to be compatible, or hack the kernel to be other-compiler-compatible, but both are monstrous and ultimately dissapointing projects. I would say that _all_ Linux installations have been built with/on GNU tools, and only non-glibc installations wouldn't have been built on the libraries. -- -dave Dave Carlson <dave at math.umn.edu> Systems Administrator School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota http://www.math.umn.edu PGP/GPG Fingerprint: C3D0 9962 1E98 B742 132D 0E1A CE11 7C4B 5309 97A7 (visit http://www.gnupg.org for more information) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20050309/524b645a/attachment.pgp