RE: [avr-libc-dev] Adding (some) Procyon AVRlib functionalitytoavr-libc

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:14 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Adding (some) Procyon AVRlib 
> functionalitytoavr-libc
> 
> As Ruddick Lawrence wrote:
> 
> > I think LibAVR might be too confusing.
> 
> I agree, though I also see Eric's point: assuming it will really
> become an object library, a link specification like -lavr looks
> good.
> 
> But then, just because the object library is named libavr.a, nobody
> says this must exactly match the project name. ;-)
> 
> (I really wonder what the "possible virus" might have been. :)

The fact that I sent a .zip file to the mailing list. 

Regarding naming, here's another thought: Why does it even have to have a 
separate name? If it's part of avr-libc, then let it be that: just a part of 
avr-libc. The library that is built could be named 'libavr.a' and one links to 
it with '-lavr', but it's still avr-libc.

We could have a separate mailing list to discuss development of it, but why do 
we have to?