Lionel Debroux (./8) :
ttdasm used to be part of these utilities. Do you have a valid gripe against GCC4TI importing some form of dasm-tigcc (which is FLOSS, and just better than ttdasm both from a functionality and legal POV) in its repository, in order to replace ttdasm ?

What will it change? It's yet another of my projects you're forking... It'll just be something I'll have to rm in my packaging of your tools suite.

Lionel Debroux (./9) :
* I started merging pstarter and ttstart (r1311).

I don't like this. As I said in the original topic about the pstarter, I don't want ifdef-littered code. But once again I'll be maintaining the official pstarter anyway, you do what you want to your fork, there's nothing I can do to stop you (you already have permission to apply the exception for unmodified versions to the versions you modify).

I haven't committed this change yet, because I have neither finished the rest of the changes to the ttstart code & dependencies nor tested them (which will be a PITA, given how many executables there are...), but I've got rid of TPRs for both pstarter and ttstart.
You showed me several weeks ago how useless the pstarter tpr is (a one-liner that calls TIGCC does the job just fine), and I don't see the point in modifying/creating eleven TPRs (and that's if I don't add support for shrink92 to ttstart - otherwise, "eleven TPRs" becomes twenty-three TPRs...) when an 11- (or 23-)liner does the job just fine.

I don't see the point of supporting all those compression methods, there should be one default (ttunpack-small or LZMA), people who want another one should just change the parameter in the TPR and rebuild.