On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:20 PM Michał Łyszczek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2025-10-28 11:54:33, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: > > (..) > > 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 :)
This is how FreeBSD Ports work - just a simple Makefile to tell how to fetch, build, and package :-) One problem that we noticed during NXDART research, just to mention here, but that requires dedicated discussion and solution is splitting the FETCH from BUILD phase in the nuttx / nuttx-apps (i.e. SDK, packages, libraries). Right now this build and fetch is mixed and this is a problem for automated testing where we would prefer to know and fetch all of the packages in advance, then create dedicated build environment where scripts are executed with no online connectivity to avoid malicious actions (i.e. testing untrusted external PR). In a perfect situation we would want to generate a list of everything that needs to be fetched, fetch it to a given location, then create dedicated one-time-use build environment with the packages, and then start the offline build and testing :-) > 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. +1 from me too because it will benefit many people it is optional it gives choice and does not break anything :-) Initial discussion was not against, just so we better understand and align the details (i.e. naming), and now all seems sorted out :-) This is not always necessary but it turns out with a big or important stuff sometimes it is required :-) It is good to see the community united fighting for the good stuff :-) :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
