Perhaps you didn't fully understand your own instructions. I'll try to explain. In my instructions, the URL for the Windows download is:
Note that the host identifier component of the filename is x86_64-mingw32
(the identifier for the 64-bit Windows "flavour")
In your instructions the download URL is:
Note that the host identifier component of the filename is i686-mingw32
(the identifier for the 32-bit Windows "flavour").
Arduino IDE 2.x looks in the staging/packages
folder for a file named micronucleus-cli-2.5-azd1b-x86_64-mingw32.zip
, which is why my instructions work for Arduino IDE 2.x users. But Arduino IDE 1.x looks in that folder for a file named micronucleus-cli-2.5-azd1b-i686-mingw32.zip
, which is why it still tried to download the file from the Internet even after you had downloaded micronucleus-cli-2.5-azd1b-x86_64-mingw32.zip
from the URL I provided and placed it in the staging/packages
folder.
I apologize for any confusion. This time it was a typo. Perhaps you can guess that the extension should have been .zip
?
No, but there does exist 32-bit and 64-bit Windows builds of the Micronucleus upload tool.
An Arduino boards platform developer can specify tool dependencies in the package index file:
https://arduino.github.io/arduino-cli/dev/package_index_json-specification/#platforms-definitions:~:text=core%20archive%20file)-,toolsDependencies,-%3A%20the%20tools%20needed
When you install the boards platform using Arduino IDE, those dependencies are also installed. The contents of a boards platform are not operating system-specific, so there is only one universal platform archive to download, but tools are generally executable binaries so it is necessary for a separate build of the tool to be made for each supported host type and for an archive of each of those builds to be provided for download:
https://arduino.github.io/arduino-cli/dev/package_index_json-specification/#tools-definitions
Arduino Boards Manager selects the appropriate tool archive download for the host machine.
It is reasonable for me to assume the reader is intelligent enough to figure it out. If they can't, they are welcome to ask for clarification.
But I get the feeling you are just being deliberately obtuse. It seems quite counterproductive.