tinnedkarma commented on PR #3192: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3192#issuecomment-3427085857
> > I see, then there is nothing blocking the road to name it "Android System Init" right? We could place it in `apps/android/system/init` (maybe just `apps/android/init`) also the fastboot could be moved to `apps/android/fastboot`? Then we have clear separation of functionalities and implementations by name and location. `apps/system` looks more like "NuttX system applications" :-) Anyways we should put this "android" somewhere in the names and paths to clearly distinguish its and implementation coming from Android and not the NuttX internal solution :-) > > Thanks again @JianyuWang0623 :-) > > @cederom I still have some questions. > > 1. The reason for naming it "Init" is that it references Android Init, SystemV Init, and systemd. Considering the module's functionality, it's similar to how Linux's system initialization process is named init or systemd. > > ``` > $ ls -l /usr/sbin/init > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Jun 4 22:17 /usr/sbin/init -> /lib/systemd/systemd > ``` > > 2. The Kconfig is named SYSTEM_INIT to follow the existing modules in apps/system, defined according to the path: apps/system/init => CONFIG_SYSTEM_INIT. > 3. Regarding the consideration of adding an ANDROID prefix because other init modules might be added in the future, my question is: for example, do other component in apps need to consider the same issue? If we need to account for possible alternative implementations, should all components have specific prefixes added, such as indicating their porting sources or which standards they are compatible with? > > Thank you :-) Here I may also add to the third bullet. As I also asked this in the mailing list. If ``apps/system/init`` is used for Android Init, this also implies that is THE (only one) init system of NuttX. At least personally, I have nothing against, we need one, so why not this one. **BUT** there is nowhere stated that this is indeed the case. So my take is: * If the community is in favor of adopting this init system as the standard/default one, then I see no need for change. * If the community wants this as "one of" the init systems, we should not use the ``apps/system/init`` path for any of them. I've saw some talk about SysV type init, so I am not sure what should be the outcome, this is the reason I also asked. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
