GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Ada Development at shagbadger]

Could someone please explain the following ?

1) Why a glibc2 linked version of gnat 3.10p has not been released ?
2) Why the fact that the distribution does not "hide" the gcc code, as
it is destined always to be
at least a few versions behind the one most people  have installed ?
3) Why the New York http site directs you to GNAT and GNAT promptly
labels you "a student" ( obviously if you can't afford "Support" you
must be a student) and sends you back to the New York site ?

These problems are relatively easy to fix for someone who knows the code
.... but they're good
problems for support contracts ..........

This proves that Ada programmers have more of a life than
C programmers... as no-one it seems (
including myself ) can be bothered to wrestle this "GPL" source from
GNAT LTD PLC ( or INC. for you
american buddies) and produce a hassle free distribution that runs on
the "GPL" platform GNU/LINUX.

Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Simon Wright]

Ada Development at shagbadger <Ada95@shagbadger.demon.co.uk> writes:

> 1) Why a glibc2 linked version of gnat 3.10p has not been released ?

There have been lots of posts on how to do this (something to do with
the size of sigset?? anyway, look up the archives of chat@gnat.com)

> 2) Why the fact that the distribution does not "hide" the gcc code,
> as it is destined always to be at least a few versions behind the
> one most people have installed ?

I don't understand what you mean. GNAT often requires patches to the
base GCC, so a release has to be version-dependent.

> 3) Why the New York http site directs you to GNAT and GNAT promptly
> labels you "a student" ( obviously if you can't afford "Support" you
> must be a student) and sends you back to the New York site ?

Perhaps if you used ftp (as Darwin intended) you would have less
trouble! ftp@cs.nyu.edu

> These problems are relatively easy to fix for someone who knows the
> code .... but they're good problems for support contracts ..........
> 
> This proves that Ada programmers have more of a life than C
> programmers... as no-one it seems ( including myself ) can be
> bothered to wrestle this "GPL" source from GNAT LTD PLC ( or
> INC. for you american buddies) and produce a hassle free
> distribution that runs on the "GPL" platform GNU/LINUX.

But there is absolutely NO trouble getting the source! And it's ACT
(Ada Core Technologies). BTW, folks, if you want to set up a support
contract, don't bother mailing sales@act.com, they won't even bother
to reply, try sales@gnat.com instead :-)

On a personal note, I must be getting old, cos your choice of an
obscene hostname very nearly stopped me bothering to reply.

Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <x7vpv9e9c5l.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>, Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk> writes:

<good answers snipped>


> On a personal note, I must be getting old, cos your choice of an
> obscene hostname very nearly stopped me bothering to reply.

Perhaps that is why some others did not reply.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Ada95]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <x7vpv9e9c5l.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>, Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> <good answers snipped>
>
> > On a personal note, I must be getting old, cos your choice of an
> > obscene hostname very nearly stopped me bothering to reply.
>
> Perhaps that is why some others did not reply.
>
> Larry Kilgallen

Perhaps you might Like to read the questions also before snipping Numbties NO1 answers.

Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Ada95]

Simon Wright wrote:

>> 1) Why a glibc2 linked version of gnat 3.10p has not been released ?

>
> There have been lots of posts on how to do this (something to do with
> the size of sigset?? anyway, look up the archives of chat@gnat.com)
>

Next time someone gives you a spec., code to the spec. , not to what you
think the
spec. should be, similarly next time you answer a posting try answering
the question. I
know how to fix the distribution, like you said there are "lots" (  keep
that "lots"in mind for a
bit later.. don't want to lose you again just yet).  Now read my question
1) again ( up there ^^^ ) ,
I not going to repeat myself.  Save this as well... all the answers to
3.10p on glibc2 were posted a year
ago.... now look down to a  thread started by _Garath_ ( nice inoffensive
name ) " Gnat 3.10p and
Redhat 5.2, a year on, you must all be getting tried of this same
question , I wonder how tried the "paid" support boys at AdaCore are of
it  ?...................... keep that in mind as well.

> > 2) Why the fact that the distribution does not "hide" the gcc code,
> > as it is destined always to be at least a few versions behind the
> > one most people have installed ?
>
> I don't understand what you mean. GNAT often requires patches to the
> base GCC, so a release has to be version-dependent.
>

Exactly because GNAT *ALWAYS" requires a patch to GCC, GNAT is always
going to be
supplied with its own version of GCC, which as AdaCore can't keep up with
those poor
misguided "C" programmers, is always going to be versions behind.  So
MOST of us want
to be able to have both versions.  This requires a separate environment,
because the code in
the GNAT compiler ( used for compiling Ada ) insists on calling itself
"gcc" and using the
gcc environment variables. Now suppose someone who knew the GNAT code
wrote a simple
awk/sed script which replaced every occurance of "gcc" in the source tree
with "gnatgcc". As if by
magic a GNAT distribution which could coexist with a  better gcc version.
Now look at a posting by
Bruno BEAUFILS "gnat 310.p and gcc 2.8.1" (a truely "beautiful" name -
maybe should have tried
something offensive - might have got a response ).  Still with me, or are
you already posting the solution
to Brunos problem "don't use 2.8.1 gnat3.10p comes with 2.7.2.1 ! " Note
my username "Ada95"... can
you guess why I've created an account all for Ada95 ?

>
> > 3) Why the New York http site directs you to GNAT and GNAT promptly
> > labels you "a student" ( obviously if you can't afford "Support" you
> > must be a student) and sends you back to the New York site ?

Now did you answer the question of why neither will  own upto having a
freely available
compiler ? or did you tell me where I could get it via ftp  ( which
I already knew ) ? lets
find out ......................

>
> Perhaps if you used ftp (as Darwin intended) you would have less
> trouble! ftp@cs.nyu.edu
>

Perhaps when Darwin prevails and Ada remove removes itself from the "code
pool" I can stop trying
to find information regards a freely available compiler from a
development team which would really rather I paid for it.

>
> > These problems are relatively easy to fix for someone who knows the
> > code .... but they're good problems for support contracts ..........
> >
> > This proves that Ada programmers have more of a life than C
> > programmers... as no-one it seems ( including myself ) can be
> > bothered to wrestle this "GPL" source from GNAT LTD PLC ( or
> > INC. for you american buddies) and produce a hassle free
> > distribution that runs on the "GPL" platform GNU/LINUX.
>
> But there is absolutely NO trouble getting the source! And it's ACT
> (Ada Core Technologies). BTW, folks, if you want to set up a support
> contract, don't bother mailing sales@act.com, they won't even bother
> to reply, try sales@gnat.com instead :-)
>

And so to bring it all together.... We ALL known that theres NO trouble
getting the source !
what about the "Hassle Free Distribution" bit ( or were you too busy
spitting feathers to read
that ...  Also ;-) I know its "ACT", I was "foxing" ... highlighting the
one to one relationship between
GNAT ( Free source code ) and ACT ( commerical support company) . And
thankyou for re inforcing
this ( folks .... its sales@gnat.com NOT sales@act.com ).

Summary )
1)  You've got to ask yourself why the world is full of free C code
projects, whereas the Ada world
has zip interest ( except money) in maintaining its own compiler and
providing free "Hassle Free Distributions".  Is it because they enjoy it
and we Ada types have enough at the end of a working day ?

2) You've also got to ask yourself who gains from a  free distribution
which requires more than a
little effort to install ? don't take a position ....just ask yourself
...who gains?  Who gains from a year of
answering the same glibc2 problem instead of saving alot of effort and
releasing a glibc2 compiled
version ?

Now I'm either one conspirancy theory short of MI6's love for Princess
Diane, or there are a lot of
people posting to comp.lang.ada and gnat.chat because someone doesn't
mind it being that way.

>
> On a personal note,

Remember you started it ........................

> I must be getting old, cos your choice of an
> obscene hostname very nearly stopped me bothering to reply.

"shagbadger" is a play on words, its feeder to get your reaction such
that I might judge you
in the same instant you judge me. My vision  is of a very english
creature, who comes alive at night,
hunted to extinction and fighting back big time.  Don't tell me , I know
your vision was one of two.

You preceive me to be vulgar and I perceive you to be a bore "pognor" !

Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Jerry van Dijk]

Ada95 (Ada95@saltedchocolateballs.co.uk) wrote:

and got me sufficiently irritated to even post a reply:

: I not going to repeat myself.  Save this as well... all the answers to
: 3.10p on glibc2 were posted a year
: ago.... now look down to a  thread started by _Garath_ ( nice inoffensive
: name ) " Gnat 3.10p and
: Redhat 5.2, a year on, you must all be getting tried of this same
: question , I wonder how tried the "paid" support boys at AdaCore are of
: it  ?...................... keep that in mind as well.

So, instead of complaining, why not build and distribute one yourself ?
As GNAT is GPL, I fail to see the relevence of the negative ACT reference.

: Exactly because GNAT *ALWAYS" requires a patch to GCC, GNAT is always
: going to be supplied with its own version of GCC, which as AdaCore 
: can't keep up with those poor misguided "C" programmers, is always 
: going to be versions behind.

From 2.8.x on, all GNAT relevant patches are included in gcc. However,
I fail to see what you you hope to archieve by using such insulting
language.

: to Brunos problem "don't use 2.8.1 gnat3.10p comes with 2.7.2.1 ! " Note
: my username "Ada95"... can
: you guess why I've created an account all for Ada95 ?

No, please tell us...

: 1)  You've got to ask yourself why the world is full of free C code
: projects, whereas the Ada world
: has zip interest ( except money) in maintaining its own compiler and
: providing free "Hassle Free Distributions".  Is it because they enjoy it
: and we Ada types have enough at the end of a working day ?

I fail to see the comparison between free C code projects and an Ada 
Compiler. There is a lot of free Ada code too.

And the Ada community _is_ provided with a free compiler (thanks to the
work done at ACT). If you feel this is not good enough, why are _you_
not improving it ?

: 2) You've also got to ask yourself who gains from a  free distribution
: which requires more than a
: little effort to install ? don't take a position ....just ask yourself
: ...who gains?  Who gains from a year of
: answering the same glibc2 problem instead of saving alot of effort and
: releasing a glibc2 compiled
: version ?

If, as you are implying, ACT does this on purpose to get support money,
and you do not like this, why not end this by supplying a glibc2 version
yourself ?

: Now I'm either one conspirancy theory short of MI6's love for Princess
: Diane, or there are a lot of
: people posting to comp.lang.ada and gnat.chat because someone doesn't
: mind it being that way.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are refering to here.

Jerry.

-- 
-- Jerry van Dijk  | email: jdijk@acm.org
-- Leiden, Holland | member Team-Ada
-- Ada & Win32: http://stad.dsl.nl/~jvandyk

Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???

[Richard Kenner]

In article <F4C9An.A2@jvdsys.stuyts.nl> jerry@jvdsys.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) writes:
>From 2.8.x on, all GNAT relevant patches are included in gcc.

Not completely correct.  It is true for GNAT 3.10, which is what I
think you meant, but GNAT 3.11 has some patches that postdate the GCC
2.8.1 release.  They will be in GCC 2.9, however.  They are also in
recent EGCS releases, but EGCS has changed the front end interface in
an incompatible way, so it is not possible to have a version of a
front end that works for both EGCS and GCC2 (and EGCS will continue to
change the interface, so this will be an ongoing problem).