Re: How frequently is the NuttX documentation updated?

[Rodrigo Sim]

Thanks a lot, Matteo and Tomek for the clarification!

Best regards,
Rodrigo

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 9:14 PM Tomek CEDRO  wrote:

> Yup :-)
>
> When PR has Documentation/ updates a CI build-html action is triggered
> for verification.
>
> Documentation build and publish is done daily by CI from master. If
> you need faster update just ask and we can trigger that action
> manually :-)
>
> Take care :-)
> Tomek
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 1:14 AM Matteo Golin 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > To my knowledge, the documentation website as whole is updated whenever a
> > change is made to the docs, up to once (or maybe twice?) a day via a
> CI/CD
> > pipeline. I don't know if there are any automated changes made to the
> > documentation, but that is the workflow when a PR is made by a developer.
> >
> > Matteo
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 5:14 PM Rodrigo Sim  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Could someone please let me know how frequently the documentation at
> > > https://nuttx.apache.org/docs/latest/index.html is updated?
> > > Is there any CI/CD pipeline involved in this process (e.g., a GitHub
> > > Action)?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Rodrigo
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>

Re: Make nxboot img_header public?

[raiden00pl]

The option to disable syslog was added in this PR
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16090
so it's quite new.

Tim, I recently wrote a blog post series on optimizing the size of NuttX
binary, so if one day you
want to optimize image size even more, I recommend you take a look at
www.railab.me :)


śr., 30 kwi 2025 o 19:15 Tim Hardisty  napisał(a):

> On 30/04/2025 16:36, Karel Kočí wrote:
> > There are actually two ways. One for just application, but you probably
> know
> > that (`openlog("", LOG_PERROR, LOG_USER)`)
> openlog is not supported in NuttX it seems. Sigh.

Re: [VOTE] Change setlogmask behavior to POSIX standard

[Michal Lenc]

Hi,

it's been 72 hours since the vote start with 7 +1 votes and no 0 or -1
votes. I think we can close the vote now and I'll mark the pull request
as ready. Thanks.

Michal

On 4/29/25 08:37, Michal Lenc wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've submitted pull request that changes setlogmask function behavior to
> the one expected by POSIX standard
> . The description of the
> change is provided in the mailing list, to summarize it, our
> implementation uses zero argument to set logging mask to zero and thus
> disable the logging at all. However, POSIX clearly states that passing
> zero argument should not modify the current logging mask, but just
> return the old one. We should change the behavior to comply with POSIX
> standards here.
>
> As Tomek suggested, we should vote here first, because this is a
> potential breaking change for existing applications. So let's vote
> for/against the change.
>
> It's also worth noting that POSIX probably (or at least I haven't found
> a way) doesn't allow to disable all logging at runtime, just to set the
> mask to the highest priority (lowest amount of messages, just emergency
> logs) with LOG_EMERG (or any other priority you want). Nevertheless, I
> consider the POSIX (and Linux) compatibility more important in this case
> and vote for the change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michal
>