[bug#45020] [PATCH 0/2] image: Add system field.

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hey,

> OTOH, I might want to cross-build a Novena image from x86_64, or I might
> want to build it natively.  Perhaps what could be said is that a Novena
> image can either be built natively on armhf-linux, or cross-built to
> arm-linux-gnueabihf.  Perhaps we should encode this constraint rather
> than a specific ‘system’ or ‘target’?  (I’m thinking out loud…)

Maybe the next step would be to define a <machine> record that encodes
the "system" and "target" constraints for a specific board/machine. The
kernel build options and userland packages options you are mentioning
above could also be part of this record.

As Danny is proposing, we could also have a "--native" argument to "guix
system" that would force native build instead of cross-compiling.

> Regarding ARM boards, do you think some additional abstraction is needed
> to encode cross-cutting concerns that affect not just the partition
> layout and choice of a bootloader, but also kernel build options, and
> maybe options for some userland packages (are there examples of that,
> though?)?
>
> Maybe the best course of action is to add all this info to <image> until
> we have a better idea, after all.

Sure, I agree.

> I guess I’m contributing more questions that answers.  :-)

It helps a lot anyway :)

Thanks,

Mathieu