search

whitequark / libfx2

Chip support package for Cypress EZ-USB FX2 series microcontrollers
BSD Zero Clause License
73 stars 26 forks source link

Make it look for 'sdcc-sdcc' and 'sdcc-sdas8051' executables too #17

Closed purdeaandrei closed 3 months ago

purdeaandrei commented 3 months ago

This is the name of the executables on fedora (tested on fedora:latest docker container)

whitequark commented 3 months ago

I'm not really happy with the complexity this adds; I also don't particularly like the idea of maintaining a set of workarounds for individual distros. Why does Fedora do this anyway?

whitequark commented 3 months ago

I think a better approach would be to make sure we have the definitions of

SDCC = sdcc
SDAR = sdar
SDAS8051 = sdas8051

and then separate ones that include the common flags, something like RUN_SDCC = $(SDCC) ....

This way, people working around weird upstream decisions can easily override them, while leaving me free from the burden of working around these decisions.

purdeaandrei commented 3 months ago

I'm not really happy with the complexity this adds; I also don't particularly like the idea of maintaining a set of workarounds for individual distros. Why does Fedora do this anyway?

Looks like it's been like this since 2007. Changelog: image And I also found a fedora readme: image

Which I checked, indeed the real executables are in libexec, and bin only contains shell scripts that pass on to libexec.

Perhaps we can add a note to the glasgow firmware, to add /usr/libexec/sdcc to PATH, does that sound acceptable?

whitequark commented 3 months ago

Perhaps we can add a note to the glasgow firmware, to add /usr/libexec/sdcc to PATH, does that sound acceptable?

Yeah.

purdeaandrei commented 3 months ago

Alright, I'll close this PR.