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

[Ada95 <Ada95@saltedchocolateballs.co.uk>]

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" !