Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Forum 2005-2010 (read only) / Bugs & Suggestions / Sources for Redistributed Binaries, Primarily MRJ on: February 14, 2009, 02:09:51 am
I am packaging the 0013.2 release for Gentoo Linux, a source-based distro (primarily for intent of my own use on that platform, but also to give back to the community).  In source-based distros, all dependencies must be available in source form, to be compiled at install time on the user's computer, or referenced to a stable system version already installed.

In this effort, I notice that there are a number of binary dependencies that are being distributed with the arduino software, either in the binary releases or in SVN, whether in jar or so or dll format, that do not have accompanying source or even a reference to the authoritative originator (some of which are therefore in violation of their licenses, yikes).  These include:
  • and RXTXcomm.jar (from the rxtx project at, LGPL)
  • antlr.jar (from, ANTLR license)
  • oro.jar (from the Apache foundation, Apache license)
  • mrj.jar (the Apple Mac Runtime for Java, no longer supported, apparently, or at the least, I haven't found its source dist website page)
The only one truly holding me up is MRJ.  My ebuild references stable versions of all of the other dependencies.  But for MRJ, I am having a bear of a time finding sources to build it.  The Gentoo maintainers don't accept ebuilds that provide only binaries instead of source for direct code or dependencies, so I must.  So, I ask, where is the authoritative source for that package?  My googling skills are okay but I haven't found it yet.  Apple seems to have given up on it, in favor of what I do not know.

I also think the arduino project would do well to put the rxtx sources (and all others, frankly) in SVN, since that package is LGPL and it could possibly come back later for unpleasant haunting.  But that's just a strong suggestion, as I have no reason (nor standing of which I know) to bring legal action, and wouldn't unless it was a true impediment to me.

Really, I just need the MRJ source java files most urgently.  Please advise from whence they come.

Best regards,
2  Forum 2005-2010 (read only) / Troubleshooting / Cmdline build error: "read in flex scanner failed" on: March 09, 2009, 03:48:48 pm
Hello all,

I'm trying to build the standard LED blink example, using the command line, and I'm getting stuck building the .elf from the .o file.  The gcc command the makefile produces (with successful references to where I've put the 0013-2's .h and .o files) is this:

avr-gcc -mmcu=atmega168 -I. -gstabs -DF_CPU=16000000 -T/usr/lib/binutils/avr/2.19.1/ldscripts -I/usr/local/include/arduino -Os -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -std=gnu99  /usr/local/lib/arduino/pins_arduino.o /usr/local/lib/arduino/wiring.o /usr/local/lib/arduino/WInterrupts.o led.o /usr/local/lib/arduino/HardwareSerial.o  --output led.elf
And the output is simply this:

/usr/libexec/gcc/avr/ld: read in flex scanner failed
My tools are these (forgive me if I've omitted any):
  • Gentoo linux, kernel 2.6.27-r8
  • arduino 0013-2
  • avr-gcc 4.3.3
  • avr-libc 1.6.4
  • flex 2.5.35
  • gmp 4.2.4
  • mpfr 2.3.2
  • avr-binutils 2.19.1
  • uisp 20050207-r1
I've searched this forum and webwide with no solution so far.  Apparently flex is failing to read a file, but I haven't yet been able to determine which one.

Any thoughts or help would be appreciated!
3  Forum 2005-2010 (read only) / News / Re: Arduino 0013 released. on: February 08, 2009, 02:48:40 pm
The linux release is a "binary" release, so it doesn't include much of the SVN directory.
Would you please consider uploading a full source tarball for the release as well, to help source-based distros fetch more easily when installing?

I could specify the SVN tag URL in the ebuild (and I'll have to otherwise), but that would unnecessarily add a subversion dependency to the package.

The linux2 version is an updated release in which the ATmega328p definition has been added to avrdude.conf (as with the Windows and Mac OS X releases).
Could updated releases have a minor version bump and be called something like "0013.1" for all platforms instead?

I could wrangle with the "2" as a special case designation (and I'll have to otherwise), but the process is cleaner if minor version designations are consistent.

I'll tag the release in a second.
I see that you have.  Thanks!

I really appreciate all that has gone into this release, and I'm eager to help get it into the hands of lots of Gentoo users in the easiest way possible for them.
4  Forum 2005-2010 (read only) / News / Re: Arduino 0013 released. on: February 07, 2009, 12:22:37 pm
Some questions about this release.
  • Why are there two tarballs for linux 0013 (-linux and -linux2)?
  • Why do both linux tarballs differ from SVN? (No build subdirectory, for example)
  • Why is there no 0013 tag in SVN?
I am writing an updated ebuild for Gentoo Linux and these issues are preventing me from referencing an authoritative stable and full-featured source tree for this release.

Perhaps these are just oversights, in which case I would like to politely request they be addressed asap.  Alternatively, I would welcome corrections of any misunderstandings I might be experiencing.

Pages: [1]