Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update brew install for gcc-arm #377

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

placrosse
Copy link
Contributor

existing instructions fail to work

Copy link
Contributor

@aditihilbert aditihilbert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since installation of gcc-arm-none-eabi-49 from px4/px4 still seems to work (e.g. me), I suggest we have both the options here. If gcc-arm-none-eabi-49 from px4/px4 does not work people could try gcc-arm-embedded from caskroom. Thanks!

@placrosse
Copy link
Contributor Author

I found that the px4 (original instructions) only work if they had been used at some point in the past prior to "some change" being made. While setting up a brand new Mynewt user, they found that the instructions no longer worked on a machine which had not previously used the px4 source.

@utzig
Copy link
Member

utzig commented Mar 1, 2018

I don't use a mac anymore so I am not gonna try installing from px4. But what I don't understand is: if there's an "official" repo that provides what we need what is the reason for not using it? Just because someone created a "community" solution before?

@placrosse
Copy link
Contributor Author

placrosse commented May 11, 2018

I agree with @utzig . There is an official repo now. Let's use it and avoid a source of inconsistency and issues.

https://developer.arm.com/open-source/gnu-toolchain/gnu-rm/downloads

@placrosse
Copy link
Contributor Author

The brew cask install gcc-arm-embedded doc change I suggested is just an alternate installation method for Mac. Either way (brew or tar-ball), using the current official toolchain from developer.arm.com is desirable (at least to me). Plus, they have recently cut down releases to only two per year.

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