On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Gregor Riepl <onit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> whoever of the two that are most "out of date" varies from time to >> time and from feature to feature. I guess it depends on where in their >> release cycle they are and how hard a time Atmel is having to get >> their patches accepted upstream. Also, there seems to be some patches >> in binutils that avr-develoopers depend on, that will never be >> accepted upstream (for whatever reason). Also, when using the Atmel >> release we get a full toolchain (gcc, binutils and libc) well tested >> to work for avr develoopment. > > In this this case I'd argue that the "best" course of action would be to offer > two packages: One that is based on the same sources as the rest of the > binutils/gcc packages in Debian (plus vanilla avr-libc), and one that builds > from Atmel toolchain sources. However, I understand that this would lead to > some confusion for users and also meant additional work.
Yes that would be possible. I'm however reluctant to take on the additional packages as I'm already behind in the maintenance of the packages I currently maintain... > > On a different note, I do think that debian/rules should be improved a bit. It > lacks quilt support (patches are hand-applied) and the whole build process is > bit hackish. When I built my custom gcc-avr and avr-libc packages, I had to > fix paths and patches manually. Agreed! -- Håkan Ardö -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
