Re: [MiNT] obsolete aout binutils?

[Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>]

On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 16:41 -0600, evan@coolrunningconcepts.com wrote:
> Quoting Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>:
> 
> > Only in that sense.  uClinux is still very much so smaller.
> 
> Depends on how much you slim down your kernel.  You can take quite a 
> bit out of
> 2.6 and compile out tons of stuff.  They will get much closer in size if you
> strip it down.
> 
> However, the major difference used to be that uCLinux was for systems that
> lacked an MMU since this would be a HUGE difference,  Unlike MiNT that only
> uses the MMU for memory protection, in Linux, the MMU is a fundamental 
> piece of
> the system.  Its this reason, more than any other, that a fork was made.

I think I was confused here.  I was thinking about it in terms of uClibc
and the whole toolchain.  But as my zaurus proves, you can combine any
of them in any way.  My zaurus uses I believe a patched vanilla linux
kernel + busybox + parts of uclibc.

I think we could benefit from uclibc and busybox... just not sure how
yet.  I tried to build busybox but I got stuck when it wanted mmap().

Thanks,
Mark