Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?
From: Mark South (mark.south_at_null.invalid)
Date: 10/14/05
- Next message: Mark South: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- Previous message: Mark South: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- Next in thread: Chris F.A. Johnson: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:54:11 +0200
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:19:08 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> Jon Martin Solaas <jonmartin.solaas@h0tm4i1> wrote:
>> You'd have to define "basic selection of tools" (it could could be
>> busybox, a complete replacement for all *utils packages from gnu or
>> something inbetween), but up to the shellprompt I don't think you need
>> much, really. You'd need init ofcourse, mount (which is delivered in a
>
> You don't need mount. You can have everything on the root partition.
> Try booting with root=/dev/hda5 init=/bin/zsh rw.
>
>> package with swap tools), some shell intelligent enough to interpret the
>> startup script (and being useful to a user),
>
> The latter is not strictly necessary. See embedded apps.
>
>> modutils, if you'd use a
>> modular kernel,
>
> He wouldn't, but then he doesn't care because the kernel (and modutils)
> is not part of the "GNU toolchain".
That's right.
>> utils for the procps, like sysctl, and so on. I don't
>
> None of that is necessary. True, you might like to mount /proc but one
> can do without it.
>
>> Actually I think most of the tools (except glibc and bash) is non-gnu
>
> He desn't have to use bash. He can use zsh, ash, or even tcsh or csh.
The only question I have here is, are there bash-specific features that
are used in the build scripts anywhere?
Yes, I know that I only have to read all the build scripts to answer that
for myself, but someone here may know already. I'm betting you have the
build scripts memorised :-)
>> (which is not the same as non-(l)gpl), up to the
shell-prompt. Other
>> userland tools like the fileutils and so on are gnu, but they're not
>> such an integral part of the boot process up to the point where a shell
>> is available.
>
> I think they're called "coreutils" nowadays, or something similar.
>
>>> Because I'm a scientist, because I'm curious, and so I want to know,
>>> and because this is comp.os.linux.MISC, and the question fits very
>>> well in a miscellany of questions about Linux.
>
>> Are you curious about the inner workings of Linux or about how to get
>> rid of the gnu tools? Just curious too ... :-)
>
> His last project was counting how many rice krispies there are in a pack.
I prefer Crunchy Nut to Rice Krispies. Also, they are bigger so fewer fit
in a pack, hence easier to count.
> Being a scientist implies asking _useful_ questions - ones that have
> interest and interesting consequences.
Indeed. However, nowhere have I claimed that the consequences of
answering the question are important. I only said that, being a
scientist, I'm naturally curious.
People often ask boring questions in this group that can easily be
answered by Google searches, my question is a cut above those at the very
least.
> This qustion exhibits only that
> the questioner does not know the answer,
Strong motivation for asking a question.
> does not understand that the
> answer is not interesting,
It's interesting to me.
> does not understand that getting the answer is
> merely a question of tedium, not difficulty, etc.
There's been little tedium so far, and fewer insults than I expected :-)
-- mark south: world citizen, net denizen echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m
- Next message: Mark South: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- Previous message: Mark South: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- Next in thread: Chris F.A. Johnson: "Re: Linux without the GNU toolchain?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
