Skip to content

Conversation

@sej7278
Copy link
Collaborator

@sej7278 sej7278 commented Feb 1, 2014

BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR is now set correctly using := instead of ?=, so that installations using only the arduino-core packages that don't have the $(ARDUINO_DIR)/hardware/tools/avr directory can still use the avr-g++ tools found in the $PATH (/usr/bin) without having to install the whole arduino IDE, e.g. raspberry pi.

Previously BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR was set to an empty string (that's what ?= does for unset variables) as the directory doesn't exist, which meant that "ifdef BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR..." was set to empty, rather than skipping to "else SYSTEMPATH_AVR_TOOLS_DIR...."

No user would set BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR so the assignment operator := should be used not ?=

Updated the version info/changes in various locations.

so that installations using only the arduino-core packages that
don't have the $(ARDUINO_DIR)/hardware/tools/avr directory can
still use the avr-g++ tools found in the $PATH (/usr/bin)

Previously BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR was set to an empty string as
the directory doesn't exist, which meant that "ifdef BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR..."
was set rather than skipping to "else SYSTEMPATH_AVR_TOOLS_DIR...."

No user would set BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR so the assignment operator
:= should be used not ?=

Updated the version info/changes in various locations.
sudar added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 2, 2014
BUNDLED_AVR_TOOLS_DIR is now set correctly
@sudar sudar merged commit 9a49615 into sudar:master Feb 2, 2014
@sudar
Copy link
Owner

sudar commented Feb 2, 2014

Thanks. Just merged it.

But don't create the package yet. Let's fix #75 also as part of 1.3.1

@sej7278
Copy link
Collaborator Author

sej7278 commented Feb 2, 2014

sure, a one character typo is hardly worth doing a release for ;-)

not sure how you want to go about the documentation - its too much for a manpage, so probably just make it into a github markup file and link to it from readme?

@sudar
Copy link
Owner

sudar commented Feb 2, 2014

its too much for a manpage, so probably just make it into a github markup file and link to it from readme?

I am still not completely sure how to implement it though. Following are some ways in which we can do.

  • A separate markup file and link it from readme
  • Man page (but as you said it might be too much)
  • Implement these as comments in the makefile near each variable where it is called and then use either Doxygen or shell script to generate the markup file (option 1)

@sej7278
Copy link
Collaborator Author

sej7278 commented Feb 2, 2014

i'd say just bung it in a MD file for now as a starting point, then work on doxygen or something later. maybe keep the issue open.

i'm hesitant to put it in the makefiles as there will be too many comments, its ok to document functions that way but every variable will be overwhelming, same as a manpage.

we could possibly do a "make help-variables" that would "more" the MD file?

@sudar
Copy link
Owner

sudar commented Feb 3, 2014

I agree with you. Let's do it as you suggested.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants