RE: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
I'm happy to hear this. Personally, I'd like to see a hybrid approach,
where a 'short list' of common targets are generated, but the mechanism
is there for developers to build whichever ones they want from a
I'd be happy to see the 'short list' targets in the Debian release, but
as long as I can generate anything from the 'long list' from the source
I'd be as happy as a pig in s*it.
Personally, I'm leaning towards making the 'long list' available from the
embedded Debian site.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher C. Chimelis [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 2:57 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Cc: Frank Smith; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> Subject: Re: gcc, binutils, libc, gdb for Amtel AVR microcontrollers
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Hakan Ardo wrote:
> > Yes, that is right, but since not all maintainers are active enough to
> > accept this kind of patches that's alwas at least possible.
> True...toolchain package maintainers tend to be quite active, though :-)
> > Well, for the binutil case the target code is already in the upstream
> > version. All the patch do in that case is to fix up the debian files to have
> > the pkg build several bunitils packages for the diffrent acrhitectures.
> Ok, great. I'm actually about to start work on a binutils-cross
> package. I'm still not sure if I want to generate cross-compilers for
> just about every port that we support (which would take forever to
> build) or make it so that the developer compiling it can select the target
> easily and build a cross-assembler from there. I'll decide soon, but
> suggestions are welcome. So far, I'm leaning towards generating
> cross-assemblers for the embedded targets that we're starting to support
> (AVR, SuperH, etc).