Should i use the files from the BSP CD or the ones from www

Go To Last Post
11 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Guyzz

I just got a NGW100 board :-)

I have downloaded the BSP ISO 2.0 from Atmel WWW , and as i run Centos 4.3 , i'd give the fedora package a try.

There is a neat how2 on the BSP CD , explaining how to install the FC5 files wia yum. But the files on the BSP CD are dated back in Jan-07 , and the http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resourc...
contain files from March , and a build for FC6.

Is the way to install this ??

To install the files from the BSP dir :

1: rpm -U stk1000bsp-release-*
2: yum groupinstall "STK1000 BSP"

The FC install document says then all i have to do in order to upgrade , to newer files (ie. those from the www) , is a yum update , but where does yum then look for the new files ??

Do i have to setup a local repository or ??

/Bingo

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I think I read that you should always get the newest copy off the Web.
John

Resistance is futile…… You will be compiled!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Indeed the newest ones of the web are good. Neither method will give you something that works with yum update as neither CD nor online is actually a repository as such.

-S.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Then it's strange that there is a lot more rpm's on the CD than on the WEB

/Bingo

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

True, it is strange. It may be (most probably is) that the toolchain rpms are the only ones on the web as these have been recently updated. Use these in preference to the toolchain rpms from the bsp CD. The remaining rpms are most likely the libraries and headers for things such as libjpeg etc. These most probably haven't been updated recently so the ones from the BSP can be safely used.

I use (k)ubuntu myself so I'm just assuming the rpms track the debs pretty closely. [I kinda think they do as most of the debs report that they were alien'd from rpms]

-S.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Use the BSP as a reference and get the updates on the web. Bug fixes and updates are difficult to send back in time :P

11011110101011011100000011011110

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Only thing there is that I couldn't update from the BSP debs to the web debs for the avr32-linux- toolchain. Kept getting avr32-linux-gcc 4.1.2 trying to link against libs in /where-ever/gcc-4.0.2/. Probably could have debugged it but as luck would have it (if you can call it that) my HDD died so everything had to be nuked from orbit and installed from scratch anyway.

-S.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

krangnes wrote:
Use the BSP as a reference and get the updates on the web. Bug fixes and updates are difficult to send back in time :P

He..He TK

Thought ATMEL was allready into "Warp Seeed" :-)

Will try to install from the BSP & then update to the ones from the web.

The BSP install is for FC5 , so i guess i should also choose FC5 webupdate packages.

Or would just the FC6 from webupddate be better for my Centos 4.4 (basically a 99.9% RHEL 4.4 clone)

/Bingo

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I'd use FC5 ones just to keep constancy with the lib packages (not for any justifiable reason, just because I'm like that ;) ). If they don't work try the FC6 ones and if neither work, make yourself a plunger of coffee, compile the toolchain from source and sit back watching matrix-style as pages of output spoodge flood your screen ;)

-S.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

If i follow the "Compile the toolchain" from the wikki , will that give me the same verions as the RPM's ??

As i see it , the RPM's contains at least binutils 2.17 , and the wikki 2.16

Will Atmel release the newer patches soon (Come on Atmel ....) ?????

Ps: Thanx for all the help squidgit

I'm building a new Linux machine this weekend.
I guess i'll put Centos 4.4 on that one also.

Even though i have never tried unbuntu.

I have tried the older debians , and never got used to not getting "kernel headers" when i got the kernel source.

RH always did "think" for me :oops:

/Bingo

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Bingo600 wrote:
As i see it , the RPM's contains at least binutils 2.17 , and the wikki 2.16

Will Atmel release the newer patches soon (Come on Atmel ....) ?????

Right on, you will get an older binutils and an older gcc too, but if the rpms don't work then that might be what you're stuck with for now ;). I'm also hanging out for Atmel to release new patchiness.
Bingo600 wrote:
Ps: Thanx for all the help squidgit
np occourse :)
Bingo600 wrote:
I'm building a new Linux machine this weekend.
[...]
I have tried the older debians , and never got used to not getting "kernel headers" when i got the kernel source.
xD fair 'nuff I spose! Personally I always thought downloading a kernel-headers package made sense too. I guess it's what you're used to. OTOH I don't think I've got kernel source from package for a while, downloads from kernel.org and a make headers_install run have been doing the trick lately.

I highly recommend ubuntu, works good. After years of GNOME usage it finally gave me the shits the other day so now using the KDE-fronted kubuntu and couldn't be happier ^_^

-S.