Having some experience with working with the Linux kernel (compiling + configuring for custom hardware, debugging, patches), I kind of like the monolithic approach for the following reasons: - All the code is one place. - Rather than having multiple drivers/libraries for the same thing, there is one solution and all coding/debugging effort is poured into that, reducing effort duplication. - At the same time, it is still possible to add third party modules if the mainline solution is not deemed sufficient. - I think it helps maintain a certain level of code quality and security - commits to the mainline code base are more likely to be seen by many more eyes than commits to a small 3rd party module maintained by a few people.
I quite like the modular structure of mynewt and the syscfg system - I think it makes it very easy to just add in the bits you need to your code. The repo system also makes it easy to add third party libraries if required. I think it's a good thing that you download just one code-base containing all the libraries you'll need and just include the ones you want. My own vote on the matter would be to stick with the monolithic system. On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 20:45, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:43 PM Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:14 AM Pierre Kircher <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > such community-managed resources must be provided > >> > as apache.org websites > >> > >> only if they take apache resources right ? > >> > > > > No... If *APACHE* Mynewt is managing this ecosystem, then it goes under > > apache.org. > > > > Use p.mynewt.apache.org if you like. It can be short or long. I never > > type "http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu"; as it just sits in > > sources.list. The length doesn't bother me at all. > > > > A closer analogy would be Maven Central. ... that is repo.maven.apache.org, > even though it is operated by Sonatype under a trademark license from us. > > Cheers, > -g
