nuttx-apps has always been a collection of useful applications and libs for users. Nothing in this repo is mandatory, it's completely optional. I don't see any reason why we should give up from nxinit in nuttx-apps. What's more, I see this as a big loss for the project.
Having a repository like nuttx-apps is a big advantage of NuttX. This gives us more freedom in what we can keep there than if the apps were part of the nuttx kernel repo. So we don't have to look for a perfect solution, which probably doesn't exist anyway. wt., 28 paź 2025 o 12:20 Michał Łyszczek <[email protected]> napisał(a): > On 2025-10-28 11:54:33, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: > > > The nuttx-apps directory already contains many apps whose value is much > more > > dubious/discussable than this nxinit thing. > > > > Following these events Xiao Xiang got understandably fed up and has > > retracted all pull requests related to this project. > > > > I wonder what is the opinion of the community about this issue. > > > > Should we vote about the integration of this new app? > > I'd say nuttx-apps should be treated like package/ dir in buildroot. You > want an app that is useful to you? You just prepare make file and kconfig > to > integrate it and push it. If code is not in nuttx repo, that is Makefile > just downloads .tar.gz from the net and unpacks it - it doesn't even have > to > follow nuttx code convention. > > I myself have added few apps like that. App only contains Makefile and > Kconfig > and code is downloaded from the internet. There was never any problem with > pushing such apps. And I believe I am the only person that uses them :) > > So in my opinion, that nxinit should be totally allowed to be added to > apps. > It's useful to someone. It's 100% optional. It's not default. It does not > break > anything. Hence it should be added without any votes as long as it follows > the > rules. Even if such app benefits only a single person. >
