Closed Apehaenger closed 4 months ago
In addition:
We don't have a 0_12_X_LSM6DSO
build target.
Instead of 0_12_X
get build with +<imu/LSM6DSO/>
.
But I don't know the historic reason why 0_12_X get copied as 0_12_X_LSM6DSO (that's why I only commenting it)
In addition: We don't have a
0_12_X_LSM6DSO
build target. Instead of0_12_X
get build with+<imu/LSM6DSO/>
.But I don't know the historic reason why 0_12_X get copied as 0_12_X_LSM6DSO (that's why I only commenting it)
I think we were moving from multiple IMU towards standardized boards/kits, so 0_12_X automatically assumed LSM6DSO. The same for 0_13_X.
# Supported values as of today:
# 0_13_X: Use this if you have 0.13.x mainboard with LSM6DSOTR (default).
# 0_12_X_LSM6DSO: Use this if you have an LSM6DSOTR and have a 0.12.x mainboard.
# 0_11_X_WT901: Use this if you have an WT901 and have a 0.11.x mainboard.
# 0_10_X_WT901: Use this if you have an WT901 and have a 0.10.x mainboard.
Regarding your PR - you saying that we are building the binary but not packaging that?
Exactly. It's in PatformIO env and compiles well, but didn't get packed.
I missed the binary for my HW combination ;-)