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

purdeaandrei commented 2024年08月01日 04:03:15 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)

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

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

whitequark commented 2024年08月01日 04:05:51 +02:00

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?

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 2024年08月01日 04:07:16 +02:00

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.

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 2024年08月01日 04:50:23 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)

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?

> 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:  And I also found a fedora readme:  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 2024年08月01日 04:51:59 +02:00

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

Yeah.

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

purdeaandrei commented 2024年08月01日 04:53:51 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Alright, I'll close this PR.

Alright, I'll close this PR.