On 2014/06/19 00:24, Daniel Bolgheroni wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:10:24AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > This file is somewhat hidden in the port. What are the consequences of > > it not being updated if the port is updated? > > I think the main issue here is that if we don't define ARDUINO >= 100, > even libraries already in the current distribution, like Firmata, will > fail to compile looking for WProgram.h, which we don't have anymore > since we are at 1.0.2. > > Test case: create a project with 'arduinoproject', edit the BSDmakefile > and add Firmata to LIBRARIES, run make. > > The libraries I checked until now use this test very much like it was > suggested in revisions.txt (Firmata case) like important 3rd-party > libraries Time and DS1307RTC (real time clock modules). > > The problem would be if libraries begin to use this with another purpose > than what was initially suggested in revisions.txt, e.g. using 105, 106 > and so on, to check for other renaming schemes in the future. I really > doubt it will occur, since the development is moving onto 1.5.x, and > 1.0.x is pretty much stable. Otherwise, we are safe defining > ARDUINO=100. > > > Does it need some check in the port Makefile to ensure that it's > > correct, or at least a reminder comment right next to DISTNAME? Also > > requires a REVISION bump. > > I don't see why. > > The alternative would be a comment in BSDmakefile stating that there are > some libraries which depend on ARDUINO >= 100 if using Arduino 1.0.x, > but since we already are at that version, I don't see a point in not > defining it previously. > > Thank you. > > -- > db >
Say the port is updated to 1.5.x, these -D lines will need to be updated, right? What I am asking for is a comment, in the port Makefile, not in a file hidden away in files/, reminding people to do that. Does that make sense?
