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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d78ba5da4a579fd8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mgk25@cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus Kuhn) Subject: Re: Filename for packages? Date: 1998/10/05 Message-ID: <6vaj2c$gbk$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 397910646 References: <36176A49.2D6C05CA@phoenix.net> <6v9f67$bs2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6v9t8v$ldu$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <6vabm3$9pr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: A related question: Why does GNAT 3.10p on Linux have for its library files the old 8+3 compressed file names instead of more natural long file names? A lot can be learned by new GNAT users by reading the library source code, however, I found that the compressed DOS-ish filenames like g-hesora.adb are much less encouraging to have a look into the files then the corresponding full names (GNAT-Heap_Sort_A.adb). It would be nice if GNAT 3.11p on Linux would not adhere any more to late 1970s QDOS filesystem restrictions. Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: