Hi On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 2:57 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 10:54:42AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 at 10:40, Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Once we have written some scripts that can build gcc, binutils, linux, > > > busybox we've opened the door to be able to support every machine type > > > on every target, provided there has been a gcc/binutils/linux port at > > > some time (which covers practically everything). Adding new machines > > > becomes cheap then - just a matter of identifying the Linux Kconfig > > > settings, and everything else stays the same. Adding new targets means > > > adding a new binutils build target, which should again we relatively > > > cheap, and also infrequent. This has potential to be massively more > > > sustainable than a reliance on distros, and should put us on a pathway > > > that would let us cover almost everything we ship. > > > > Isn't that essentially reimplementing half of buildroot, or the > > system image builder that Rob Landley uses to produce toybox > > test images ? > > If we can use existing tools to achieve this, that's fine. >
Imho, both approaches are complementary. Building images from scratch, like toybox, to cover esoteric minimal systems. And more complete and common OSes with mkosi which allows you to have things like python, mesa, networking, systemd, tpm tools, etc for testing.. We don't want to build that from scratch, do we?
