From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6cfdc446e6bbe8ba
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.238.65 with SMTP id vi1mr12821683pbc.7.1339947192208;
        Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni61491pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Marco <prenom_nomus@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Listing currently maintained libraries for Ada
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <079c1b87-1e95-4c18-a1e2-6fab1a3b9db7@googlegroups.com>
References: <d36fe271-b6de-489b-9f4d-e6994773445e@googlegroups.com>
 <jrehnr$27nn$1@adenine.netfront.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.1.111.248
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1339947192 1324 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2012 15:33:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:33:12 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jrehnr$27nn$1@adenine.netfront.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.1.111.248;
 posting-account=WITAxQkAAAAHjnLda9Lofpqp8mERTWL4
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-06-17T08:33:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:37:59 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 08:51 PM, i3text@gmail.com wrote:
> > When searching for Ada libraries, it is discouraging to find mostly dead
> > links or links to dead projects. So I decided to make a list of all the
> > libraries I could find that seem to be still active projects. To be listed, a
> > library must have seen some maintenance activity within the last year. I
> > generally ingored things that are already part of the GNAT distribution.
> >
> > At first, I wanted to list just libraries of production quality, but I
> > figured I couldn't reliably evaluate that. So, a lot of the things here are
> > alpha quality. Of course, there are libraries that haven't seen any work for
> > several years but still get downloaded a lot. But I wanted a listing of
> > libraries where I could reasonably expect help and bug-fixes.
> >
> > Do you know any I've missed?
> 
> Your criteria are somewhat strange. A mature library will be useful but see no 
> "maintenance activity" because there is no longer anything to change. 

I agree that all usable libraries should be listed. 
Can this list be transferred to wikipedia or other well maintained website?
Maybe Library Authors can just add a note on the their website once a year or so to show that is a still a viable library.

I also appreciate the OPs effort.