GNAT-FSF for Windows?

GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[David Botton]

Is there an up to date FSF version of GNAT for Windows? 32bit? 64bit?

MingGW's version is fairly ancient from what I can tell and missing grpbuild, etc.

David Botton

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT), David Botton wrote:

> Is there an up to date FSF version of GNAT for Windows? 32bit? 64bit?
> 
> MingGW's version is fairly ancient from what I can tell and missing grpbuild, etc.

I didn't try it myself, but there is Debian minGW packages. E.g.

   https://packages.debian.org/sid/gnat-mingw-w64
 
This is 4.9. Install it and them copy files to the Windows machine.

It is most likely be incompatible with GNAT GPL binaries, but that should
not worry you if you don't want to mix them.

Regarding gprbuild, you really need it only if you mix much of C code with
Ada. Otherwise gnatmake would do. A few C sources could be compiled
manually gcc -c and then linked with using gnatmake.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[David Botton]

>    https://packages.debian.org/sid/gnat-mingw-w64

Not exactly the same idea :) I want to be able to direct people for Gnoga on Windows to a non-GPL virus version of GNAT.

David Botton

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Simon Wright]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> Regarding gprbuild, you really need it only if you mix much of C code
> with Ada. Otherwise gnatmake would do.

You need gprbuild if you're building dynamic libraries on Mac OS X
(gnatmake doesn't know how to get the rpath right).

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Florian Weimer]

* David Botton:

> Is there an up to date FSF version of GNAT for Windows? 32bit? 64bit?

Strictly speaking, the FSF does not release binaries, so no.

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[David Botton]

> Strictly speaking, the FSF does not release binaries, so no.

Yes, but GNAT-FSF is often how we refer to a non-AdaCore release of GNAT that does not include their "GPL Virus" to scare off customer use.

I enjoying writing code but not building compilers and installation packages, so I was hoping that I don't have to spend time on it and there are sources I can  just turn application developers to.

However, if I am investing time and money in pushing Ada to a new market, I am not going to blow any chance of success with a virus layden compiler. I walked away for years because of it myself.

I've sent some messages to a contact in AdaCore but I am assuming he is on vacation as he hasn't responded to any of them. I doubt they would ignore me. I'll try some other people next week in AdaCore that know me if I don't hear back from him.

I have a business proposal for AdaCore that would work well with their current business model and they would financially benefit and at the same time open the door allowing a non-Virus compiler for application use all without harming their current customer base.

I'd much rather work with them than start a competing GNAT compiler farm to make my own non-virus releases for Gnoga use.

David Botton

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Jeremiah]

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, David Botton wrote:
> I enjoying writing code but not building compilers and installation packages, so I was hoping that I don't have to spend time on it and there are sources I can  just turn application developers to.

Out of curiosity what would be your target audience for this?  Existing Ada developers that also target Windows?  Developers who would be new to Ada in particular but are very familiar with windows development?  Other?

I am excited about your approach to work with Ada Core on it.  If the second group I mentioned is part of your target audience, I think right now that is going to be your best bet.  Getting up to date FSF more readily available for Windows by itself probably won't help with that target group.  

On a side note (But related in that it is part of the choice to use FSF vs other options), is the copyright/license statement required in all files generated for FSF licensed source/binaries or is it just an option?

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[David Botton]

> Out of curiosity what would be your target audience for this?

Users of Gnoga on Windows.

>  Existing Ada developers that also target Windows?

Any current or potential user of Gnoga that chooses to use Windows as their development or deployment option.

>  Developers who would be new to Ada in particular but are very familiar with windows development?  Other?

I could care less if they know how to develop windows software. Gnoga is cross platform, no knowledge needed unless interfacing with existing code.

> I am excited about your approach to work with Ada Core on it.

I always try to work with them, in general I have both a positive attitude and have had a positive relationship with them. The GPL virus version of the compiler was a short sighted self defeating decision and I hope they will see reason in one of the solutions I have in mind (which I believe will make them money and important for them and Ada to not attack their current customer base). I certainly do not want to be maintaining compilers or "competing".

There is certainly not enough incentive or money anymore in the current Ada market to raise the funds needed for another open source Ada tool chain.

>  If the second group I mentioned is part of your target audience

The target is Gnoga users, the hope is to create new blood for Ada drawing people in with it. That won't happen and I won't invest in pushing Ada if I can't get compilers that are virus free for use.

> On a side note (But related in that it is part of the choice to use FSF vs other options), is the copyright/license statement required in all files generated for FSF licensed source/binaries or is it just an option?

I don't know what FSF policies are, but I can't imagine a legal requirement.


David Botton

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Simon Wright]

Jeremiah <jeremiah.breeden@gmail.com> writes:

> On a side note (But related in that it is part of the choice to use
> FSF vs other options), is the copyright/license statement required in
> all files generated for FSF licensed source/binaries or is it just an
> option?

I don't know what "all files generated for" means. Did you mean "from"?
in which case the answer has to be "no".

But re: "required in all files", "How to use GNU licenses for your own
software"[1] is relevant:

   "Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
   elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice
   (such as "Copyright 1999 Terry Jones"), and a statement of copying
   permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of
   the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)."

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Jeremiah]

On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:14:11 AM UTC-4, David Botton wrote:
> > Out of curiosity what would be your target audience for this?
> 
> Users of Gnoga on Windows.
> 
> >  Existing Ada developers that also target Windows?
> 
> Any current or potential user of Gnoga that chooses to use Windows as their development or deployment option.
> 
> >  Developers who would be new to Ada in particular but are very familiar with windows development?  Other?
> 
> I could care less if they know how to develop windows software. Gnoga is cross platform, no knowledge needed unless interfacing with existing code.
Gotcha.  I misunderstood part of your intentions and target groups.  I apologize for that.  I appreciate your time.  Thank you!

Re: GNAT-FSF for Windows?

[Jeremiah]

On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:32:51 AM UTC-4, Simon Wright wrote:
> > On a side note (But related in that it is part of the choice to use
> > FSF vs other options), is the copyright/license statement required in
> > all files generated for FSF licensed source/binaries or is it just an
> > option?
> 
> I don't know what "all files generated for" means. Did you mean "from"?
> in which case the answer has to be "no".
> 
> But re: "required in all files", "How to use GNU licenses for your own
> software"[1] is relevant:
> 
>    "Whichever license you plan to use, the process involves adding two
>    elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice
>    (such as "Copyright 1999 Terry Jones"), and a statement of copying
>    permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of
>    the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL)."
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

I did mean "for" not "from" though "from" is also an item of interest.  Thank you for this posting.  It answered my question.