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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2573df63ff37c586
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.125.233 with SMTP id mt9mr2485086pbb.5.1336049480450;
        Thu, 03 May 2012 05:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni127321pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Adaforge?
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 05:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <20440327.48.1336049480101.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndu27>
References: 
 <10872380.887.1335622497447.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfr18>
 <20524276.2208.1335953540520.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbqq1>
 <82d36ll9zd.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <qx6unotgk2ih$.dehvc9ge1j3h.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1336049480 31209 127.0.0.1 (3 May 2012 12:51:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 12:51:20 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <qx6unotgk2ih$.dehvc9ge1j3h.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=153.98.68.197;
 posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-05-03T05:51:20-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:33:58 +0100, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
>> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>> 
>>> * As Dmitry well pointed out, there is a difference between
>>>   hosting sources and hosting binaries.  My stance on this
>>>   matter is probably well-known on this newsgroup.  In short,
>>>   binaries belong in the general-purpose repositories of their
>>>   target platforms; only this can give these binaries the
>>>   visibility they deserve. IOW, the packages should be in the
>>>   official Debian/Fedora/FreeBSD/Cygwin/Slackware/whatever
>>>   repository if one exists.  
>> 
>> +1
> 
> One of the tasks of AdaForge might be exactly this, advertising Ada
> libraries and applications in the corresponding communities (largely
> unaware of Ada) and pushing them into the official repositories and
> distributions.

That's what the GNU Ada Project on SourceForge is all about.  As I
said, there is no need for a new forge; there is need for more quality
content in existing forges.

http://sf.net/projects/gnuada

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.