Hello everyone, Thanks for all the feedback! I'm glad I discussed this here first. I'll try to address everything that was brought up.
Thanks Guiding for the input! I must just be missing some library on my machine if you're able to compile it just fine. Maybe I'll track down that error and see if you can recognize what's wrong. I don't intend to replace OS test anymore. I think it serves its purpose as a minimal sanity check. Instead, I think we need something a little more involved to test PRs since OS test can't catch many issues. It is currently the standard everyone uses for verifying their patches and it would be better to have more complete, alternate options. I do think that we can all agree that OS test needs a revision of its console output so that it is much easier to see pass/fail results, but that is just a matter of print statements and can be done in a different effort. I think the overwhelming concern here is mixing two unit testing frameworks and no longer having one resource where we can go for tests. I share raiden and Guiding's concern about that, which is why I'm glad I opened for discussion here. On the one hand, Xiaomi has a pretty substantial collection of tests in the `testsuite` application which they are using internally I believe (in their CI). These run well on virtual machines, which I assume is why the only configurations with that test suite included is sim and rv-virt. I do not know nearly enough about cmocka to make any claim that it *wouldn't* work on smaller hardware devices, but it also definitely looks to be less light-weight from the feature set in the documentation. On the other hand, the Xiaomi test suites are also not a complete silver bullet since they seem not to be intended to run on hardware, and there are *a lot *of tests that need hardware verification. In PRs we often request more than just a simulator test for certain changes. For instance, sim isn't able to have `/dev/rand`, so that needs to be tested on a different target. Maybe someone more familiar with Xiaomi's testing practices can weigh in on whether cmocka has been run on hardware. Going purely based off of their PRs, which almost exclusively cite tests on simulators, my guess is that cmocka was not designed with embedded in mind when it was written. As for size: unit testing can get large with Unity or cmocka (as raiden mentioned) as more tests are added. Hence my effort to enable/disable individual test suites from getting compiled. It might not be possible to ever get good testing ability for AVR just because the devices are so small. Whatever solution is used there is probably going to involve flashing the device multiple times with different tests. The size goal should just be to target the most NuttX devices possible. Then there are the pros and cons of each framework (again, I don't know much about cmocka so take it with a grain of salt): Unity's cons: - Designed for each test-suite to be a standalone binary. This is clunky on NuttX, so `nest` is currently implemented as a mega-suite where test cases just follow a naming convention to make it clear what is being tested - setUp/tearDown can't really be leveraged because of the above - I've noticed some funky behaviour using TEST_IGNORE in certain scenarios but that's possibly my own configuration issue - Would be in conflict with existing cmocka tests Unity's pros: - Highly configurable, like NuttX - Light-weight and works for embedded devices - Significantly larger user base than cmocka Cmocka's cons: - Possibly (?) not light-weight - No documentation for existing test cases in NuttX - Small user base Cmocka's pros: - Seems to have a larger set of features, including setup/teardown functions per-test case - Existing tests in NuttX Irrespective of whether we go with Unity or cmocka, the collection of tests that we write will be intended to run on the actual hardware devices themselves for the purposes of testing patches and doing regression tests. As a result, the tests will be separate from the Xiaomi 'testsuite' application which is intended for CI testing. I think this realistically nullifies choosing which framework to use on the basis of consistency, since the tests are not coexisting with the cmocka tests Xiaomi has written. Instead, the choice should be based on what best achieves the goal from a functionality perspective. Unity seems like a really great choice for this in my opinion, but I am bothered by the fact that it's designed with multiple test binaries in mind. Let me know what you think, Matteo On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 11:02 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I agree! We need data size from each solution for comparison, this is > the first step. > > Maybe the conversion could be facilitated if we create equivalent functions > like those used in the apps/testing/testsuites: > > cmocka_run_group_tests -> unity_run_group_tests > cmocka_unit_test_setup_teardown -> unity_unit_test_setup_teardown > etc... > > This way we avoid end up with two unit test framework, we already have the > Makefile vs CMake precedent! :-D > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 11:27 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The discussion about small systems doesn't make much sense without > > data comparing resources of the same test cases for cmock and unity. > > > > But let's assume that Unity is better. Should we use two frameworks > > to implement unit tests for OS? Or choose one framework? If we choose > only > > Unity, who > > will migrate the current cmocka tests to Unity? Remember that cmoka tests > > are used in CI, so all CI tools must be also migrated. > > Or should we use two different frameworks to test different things and > make > > even > > more mess in apps/testing as it is now? > > > > No one is forcing anyone to do anything. This is an open-source project, > > everyone > > should do what they feel is right. But whether the change should be > merged > > is > > a different question. In this case, it's a very important question, > because > > unit testing > > isn't just about test cases. It's about the entire infrastructure that > > runs, captures and > > handles test results later. Writing the test cases is the least of the > > problems. > > The infrastructure for cmoka testing is already in place, the > > infrastructure for Unity > > testing isn't. > > > > pon., 22 gru 2025 o 14:16 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > > > Mateusz, > > > but some chips like AVR DA have big flash, but not so much RAM. > > > > > > It is better to have some possible way to test on a small system, using > > > cmocka we are removing this option from the table. > > > > > > I liked the test Matteo did with Unity and I think we should let him > > > continue. Forcing him to migrate to cmocka just because there's a test > > > suite from Xiaomi doesn't seem prudent to me. > > > > > > This is the advantage of an open mind open-source project: "the > > possibility > > > to test new ideas", if someone had said to Michal Lenc he couldn't > create > > > NXBoot because where is already MCUBoot integrated on NuttX, we didn't > > have > > > the option to use NXBoot today. ;-) > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:02 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Unit testing by itself isn't suitable for small systems. Ostest is > > > > something > > > > different (system level testing), so running it on small systems > makes > > > > sense. > > > > Running unit tests on small systems is pointless because you won't > fit > > in > > > > FLASH > > > > either way. You can run the same on large targets (preferably on > host: > > > sim, > > > > qemu) > > > > and achieve the same result. > > > > > > > > pon., 22 gru 2025 o 13:35 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > Is it too complicated to rewrite the cmocka tests in Unity? > > > > > > > > > > If cmoka is not feasible for small microcontrollers, like AVRs and > > > > others, > > > > > our test coverage will be faulty. > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 6:14 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a fan of Unity and have been using it in my projects for > years, > > > > but I > > > > > > think > > > > > > we should stick with one testing framework. Currently, Cmocka is > > used > > > > in > > > > > > nuttx-apps, and we should stick with it. The only question is how > > > well > > > > > > Cmocka > > > > > > is suitable for running on small systems? Will ostest still be > able > > > to > > > > > run > > > > > > on small MCUs? > > > > > > With Unity this would be quite likely, so maybe an exception for > > > Unity > > > > > and > > > > > > ostest would > > > > > > be acceptable, but using it for other test cases will only cause > > > chaos. > > > > > > > > > > > > pon., 22 gru 2025 o 10:05 Guiding Li <[email protected]> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matteo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good idea ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it is best to stick with a single testing framework. > > Currently, > > > > > many > > > > > > > test cases are using cmocka, so I suggest reusing cmocka for > > > > > consistency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ostest is a minimal basic test suite, typically used for CT > > > > (continuous > > > > > > > testing) of each patch. > > > > > > > If we move ostest to cmocka, it would make ostest dependent on > a > > > > > specific > > > > > > > framework before it can be run. > > > > > > > And It may increase the code size, which is not very friendly > for > > > > > > > configurations with small flash memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Greg mentioned: the answer depends on a tradeoff between > > effort > > > > and > > > > > > test > > > > > > > coverage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to clarify whether we define ostest as a lightweight, > > > > > > ready-to-run > > > > > > > test set for quick verification, or as part of the full test > > suite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The follow is my compiling for cmocka: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ ./tools/configure.sh > > > sim:citest > > > > > > -j8* > > > > > > > Copy files > > > > > > > Select CONFIG_HOST_LINUX=y > > > > > > > Refreshing... > > > > > > > CP: arch/dummy/Kconfig to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/arch/dummy/dummy_kconfig > > > > > > > CP: boards/dummy/Kconfig to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/boards/dummy/dummy_kconfig > > > > > > > LN: include/arch to arch/sim/include > > > > > > > LN: drivers/platform to > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/drivers/dummy > > > > > > > LN: arch/sim/src/chip to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/arch/sim/src/sim > > > > > > > LN: arch/sim/src/board to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/boards/sim/sim/sim/src > > > > > > > LN: include/arch/board to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/boards/sim/sim/sim/include > > > > > > > LN: include/arch/chip to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/arch/sim/include/sim > > > > > > > LN: platform/board to > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/platform/dummy > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/audioutils > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/benchmarks > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/boot > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/canutils > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/crypto > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/database > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/examples/rust > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/examples/sotest > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/examples/module > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/examples/mcuboot > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/examples > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/fsutils > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/games > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/graphics > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/industry > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/inertial > > > > > > > mkkconfig in > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/interpreters/luamodules > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/interpreters > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/logging > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/lte > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/math > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/mlearning > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/netutils > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/sdr > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/system > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/tee > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/drivers > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/sched > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/fs > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/mm > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/libc > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/arch > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing/cxx > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/testing > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/videoutils > > > > > > > mkkconfig in > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/wireless/bluetooth > > > > > > > mkkconfig in > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/wireless/ieee802154 > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/wireless > > > > > > > mkkconfig in /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps > > > > > > > Loaded configuration '.config' > > > > > > > Configuration saved to '.config' > > > > > > > ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ > > > > > > > *ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ make* > > > > > > > Create version.h > > > > > > > Downloading: libcxx-17.0.6.src.tar.xz LN: platform/board to > > > > > > > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/apps/platform/dummy > > > > > > > Downloading: v1.46.0.zip > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > patching file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_sigmask/18-1.c > > > > > > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 160 with fuzz 2 (offset -8 lines). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CP: /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/include/nuttx/config.h > > > > > > > CP: > /home/ligd/platform/mainline/nuttx/include/nuttx/fs/hostfs.h > > > > > > > LD: nuttx > > > > > > > Pac SIM with dynamic libs.. > > > > > > > '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1' -> 'sim-pac/libs/libz.so.1' > > > > > > > '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6' -> > > > > 'sim-pac/libs/libstdc++.so.6' > > > > > > > '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6' -> 'sim-pac/libs/libc.so.6' > > > > > > > '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6' -> 'sim-pac/libs/libm.so.6' > > > > > > > '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1' -> > > > 'sim-pac/libs/libgcc_s.so.1' > > > > > > > '/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' -> 'sim-pac/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' > > > > > > > SIM elf with dynamic libs archive in nuttx.tgz > > > > > > > ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ > > > > > > > ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ > > > > > > > ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ > > > > > > > *ligd@BAI:~/platform/mainline/nuttx$ ./nuttx * > > > > > > > CHelloWorld: Constructor: mSecret=42 > > > > > > > nsh: init: open failed: 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NuttShell (NSH) NuttX-12.11.0 > > > > > > > MOTD: username=admin password=Administrator > > > > > > > nsh> > > > > > > > nsh> help > > > > > > > help usage: help [-v] [<cmd>] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . df ifconfig mkfifo readlink > > > > umount > > > > > > > [ dmesg ifdown mkrd rm > > > unset > > > > > > > ? echo ifup mount rmdir > > > > uptime > > > > > > > alias env insmod mv rmmod > > > > usleep > > > > > > > unalias exec kill nslookup set > > > watch > > > > > > > basename exit pkill pidof sleep > > xd > > > > > > > break expr losetup pmconfig source > > > wait > > > > > > > cat false ln poweroff test > > > > > > > cd fdinfo ls quit time > > > > > > > cp free lsmod printf true > > > > > > > cmp help mkdir ps truncate > > > > > > > dirname hexdump mkfatfs pwd uname > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Builtin Apps: > > > > > > > cmocka > > > > > > > cmocka_driver_block > > > > > > > cmocka_driver_gpio > > > > > > > cmocka_driver_pm > > > > > > > cmocka_driver_pm_runtime > > > > > > > cmocka_driver_regulator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matteo Golin <[email protected]> 于2025年12月22日周一 10:15写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think so. Best to leave OS test alone and slowly replace it > > > with > > > > a > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > tool that has improvements. The only reason I can see to > modify > > > OS > > > > > test > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > would just be to have clearer output about what > passed/failed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll come up with an improved proof of concept for a new tool > > to > > > > > share > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025, 9:13 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Small steps with measurable results may be the best > approach > > > > here, > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > create some new solution next to existing ostest but not > > > > replacing > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > until ready? :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 3:06 AM Matteo Golin < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, I think it would take a long time to have proper > > > > > coverage > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > NuttX > > > > > > > > > > as a whole. Perhaps even impossible, since Unity is more > > of a > > > > > unit > > > > > > > > > testing > > > > > > > > > > framework and thus there are definitely test cases for > > NuttX > > > > that > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > outside of its realm of "applicability". There is still a > > > need > > > > > for > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > variety of testing applications and bench-marking > > > applications > > > > > for > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense, prerequisites would need to be > > considered. > > > I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > targeting the low-hanging fruit of unit-testable code > would > > > be > > > > > easy > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > case, since prerequisites are mostly encoded in the > Kconfig > > > > > > > definitions > > > > > > > > > > existing or not for features to be tested. Any complex > > > > behaviour > > > > > > > > > > (interrupts, multi-threading, etc.) might be out of the > > realm > > > > of > > > > > > > what's > > > > > > > > > > testable by Unity in the first place. We'll always have > OS > > > test > > > > > in > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > case, but maybe then it's better to do what Alan > suggested > > > and > > > > at > > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > > > make its output more clear in the meantime. I suppose > RTOS > > > > > testing > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > whole field in itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 8:40 PM Gregory Nutt < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the answer depends on a tradeoff between > > > effort > > > > > and > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > coverage. I could imagine that a proper job could be > > > > man-years > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My only concern with a re-design is to be certain that > > > tests > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > arranged so that the prerequisites of later test are > > tested > > > > > > first. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > tests are grouped by, for example, functional area, > then > > > > > failures > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > difficult to understand if there is a failure in an > > > > unverified > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the "tests" are bogus and only exist to provide > > > some > > > > > > > minimum > > > > > > > > > > > confidence that we have the functionality to run the > > test. > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > > example: Can I start tasks? Can I pass parameters? > Can > > I > > > > > > survive > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > context switch. Some of the tests were intended only > to > > > > > support > > > > > > > > debug. > > > > > > > > > > > Some were created only to track down specific bugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/21/25 18:39, Matteo Golin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > LTS being the Long-Term-Stable release of NuttX? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm starting to think that it would be best to create > > new > > > > > suite > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > > using Unity, using what's in OS Test as a basis and > > then > > > > > > > expanding > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > further. Greg has pointed out that OS test is not > > > intended > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > > > > > test, so maybe a more solid testing framework base > in a > > > new > > > > > > form > > > > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > > > > > > in order. At that point it would also be good to > > document > > > > and > > > > > > > > educate > > > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > > about other test options, since OS test is a current > > > > > favourite > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > showing > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs haven't broken anything. Maybe that's not the > best > > > > choice > > > > > > > > anymore > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > this information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to re-invent the wheel of what's already > > in > > > > > > > > `testsuite`, > > > > > > > > > > > but I > > > > > > > > > > > > think Unity might end up being lighter-weight in the > > long > > > > > run? > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > > also not a Xiaomi owned/maintained framework so it > may > > > > > receive > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > > > > external support (i.e. more users rely on it?). I > tried > > > to > > > > > > > compile > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > sim:citest configuration to run the testsuite example > > and > > > > see > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > it was > > > > > > > > > > > > like, but I was met with a long list of C++ > compilation > > > > > errors > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > > > > > rather not deal with. There also seems to be zero > docs > > > > about > > > > > it > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > cmocka > > > > > > > > > > > > in our NuttX docs at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? Start a Unity test suite, add some > > > > > switches > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > choose > > > > > > > > > > > > which test cases get compiled into the binary, open > for > > > > > > > extensions > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > > who know more about different subsystems? This way we > > can > > > > > keep > > > > > > OS > > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > it is for a quick, low-resource sanity check of > "board > > > > > bringup" > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > having a dedicated testing application for patches? > > > Someone > > > > > > > > changing > > > > > > > > > file > > > > > > > > > > > > system stuff can just compile to include file system > > test > > > > > cases > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > > that suite only as proof that their PR works. The > > output > > > is > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > glance at to determine pass/fail results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyways, here's my draft demonstrating how Unity > works > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > FPU > > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > > > suite from OS test: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3259 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 7:13 PM Tomek CEDRO < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 1:02 AM Gregory Nutt < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (..) > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Starting with bits and pieces of something like the > > LTS > > > > > might > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > >>> sense other than its licensing problems. Since it > > > would > > > > > > never > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > >>> included in a distributed binary, the licensing > > really > > > > > should > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much in practice. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Unless its GPL and some company would like to have > > their > > > > own > > > > > > > > > internal > > > > > > > > > > > >> bits and pieces.. luckily its MIT and the whole > thing > > is > > > > > > > > open-source > > > > > > > > > > > >> anyways :-) > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Yes we had many discussions about the LTS and this > > could > > > > be > > > > > > > great > > > > > > > > > start! > > > > > > > > > > > >> :-) > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > > > > >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
