boards/*avr*: Update the link to the AVaRICE documentation #21595
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
maribu
approved these changes
Jul 12, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Contribution description
During the review of #21573 the AVaRICE debugger came up and our documentation is a bit out of date.
While the development of AVaRICE is still slow, it is not stopped (anymore) and there was a release in 2020. When the documentation was written, there hasn't been a release for nearly a decade, so I decided to remove the remarks about AVaRICE's ancient code base.
RFC: It would be possible to add a remark that AVaRICE should probably still be built from code instead of using the release version, as half a decade is also quite old already...
While touching the files, I moved them to Markdown format as discussed in #21220.
It would be nice to have a single documentation for AVaRICE, because currently it's a bit redundant with varying levels of completeness, but I didn't feel like diving into another rabbit hole today, sorry 😅
Testing procedure
Check that the documentation still looks good.
Issues/PRs references
This came up in #21573.