From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael S. Zick Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:36:01 -0600 Subject: [Buildroot] BE: Buildroot How-To for QEMU/ARM (Jim Thomas) In-Reply-To: References: <411591.91959.qm@web44811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201001311536.04491.minimod@morethan.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Sun January 31 2010, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2010-01-31, Jim Thomas wrote: > > > I think the Buildroot adoption rate might be higher if there > > were a documented, streamlined way to build the kernel/RFS and > > execute it under QEMU, with an end-to-end Buildroot build > > process triggered by a single 'some_arm_defconfig'. It might > > serve as a very useful hardware independent reference > > platform. > > I think that would be usefull as well. Building for ARM boards > and then running on Qemu is how I got up to speed on the > Buildroot "environment", but it was harder than it could have > been because the tutorials for buildroot/ARM/Qemu were out of > date and the default configs for the two platforms I tried were > broken (wouldn't build). > > Keeping a tutorial up-to-date would take some effort. It might > be easier if it were in a Wiki format that didn't require > wrestling with the bug-tracker and the submissions and approval > of patches. > > If the default configs aren't going to be kept up to date, it > would be nice if there was something to indicate which > version(s) of Buildroot they did work with. > depends on Broken At the appropriate places would do that trick. But don't ask for that - you'll probably get one of those: "That requires the purchase of a commercial support contract." answers since it involves the function of what is actually produced by the build system, not the build system itself. Mike > It would be easy enough to set up an automated test to check > that all of the default configs build, but checking to see if > they work is obviously a lot harder. >