[Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1001273: Bug#932989: gcc-avr: Package version severely outdated compared to main gcc-toolchain

[Hakan Ardo]

I believe your right, and I would support any such efforts. I've orphaned
these packages quite some time ago as I've not been able to find the time
to implement this myself though.

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 2:03 PM Gregor Riepl <onitake at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >> Switching back to use upstream source would be one option. But will
> >> that mean we'll have to dropp support for newer devices?
>
> > Unfortunately I don’t know too much about the development history of
> > this package @Debian and the related decisions. It would be helpful
> > though to have other developers and maintainers to have their say on
> > this to help find a common solution. At first one should find out if
> > support for newer devices would suffer from such an approach. I have
> > not come across that topic yet...
>
> To be honest, I don't think newer device support is a big issue any
> more. While Microchip is still releasing new AVR MCUs, they are usually
> not that different from existing devices. Even if Debian is lagging
> behind, I think developers targeting older devices will benefit greatly
> from an updated gcc. If they must, they can always rely on the binary
> releases provided by Microchip.
>
> It's also not that hard to feed in support for new devices:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/avr-gcc#Supporting_.22unsupported.22_Devices
>
> And last but not least, upstream has kept pace with new AVR devices, as
> can be seen in the gcc release notes:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html#avr
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/changes.html#avr
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html#avr
>
> I believe it's time to make the switch - same for binutils-avr and
> avr-libc.
>


-- 
Håkan Ardö
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-electronics-devel/attachments/20211216/61317b25/attachment.htm>