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