Re: Adaforge?

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

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

> Windows lacks such a repository, so for Windows the fallback is to
> publish the binaries alongside the sources.

Actually, there are two for Windows that are quite large, and have
automated package installers (similar to, but less sophisticated than,
Debian's); MinGW (http://www.mingw.org/), and Cygwin
(http://www.cygwin.com/).

Cygwin has GNAT, and it's not hard to write packages for it (not as hard
as Debian, for example :).

I have not tried writing a MinGW package; their installer is brand new.
The sourceforge download page for MinGW is down at the moment, so I
can't check if it has GNAT (it probably does since it's part of gcc, but
I've never looked for it before).

The choice between the two is something of a religious issue :(.

-- 
-- Stephe