well. :-( On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:02 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > It is better to use the right naming. > > Fitbit implemented support for System V on NuttX and promised to donate it, > but after Google acquired them, none contribution came from them. > > Google also used NuttX on ARA Project, but no single code line was > submitted to the NuttX mainline. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 8:07 AM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello world :-) > > > > There is a very interesting and useful PR by @JianyuWang0623 that adds > > support for Android System Init functionality to NuttX [1][2] with > > working example on qemu [3]. This is alternative to SystemV Init and > > probably other init designs. Please help in reviewing the change :-) > > > > My only concern is naming convention here because just "system" and > > "system init" is used (i.e. CONFIG_SYSTEM_INIT, CONFIG_SYSTEM_SYSTEM). > > This may be a bit confusing because we do not know what init system > > standard is used and we silently assume Android. My proposition is to > > use "Android System Init" naming convention (i.e. > > CONFIG_SYSTEM_ANDROID_INIT or something like that), so things are > > self-explanatory, and other init systems may be used when necessary in > > future without confusion. I am not insisting here and will follow the > > community choice. > > > > Please let us know what you think :-) > > > > Thanks :-) > > Tomek > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3192 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17215 > > [3] https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17215 > > > > -- > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > >
-- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
