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: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:43:04 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: <878vts6tfb.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> References: <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <8762ozahib.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <871uznaczz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <015e3d6a-772a-41f8-a057-49c8b7bd80e1@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4MednVYCXuUZQEHQRVn_vwA@giganews.com> <6d913128-402e-47cc-ae3e-273b65198507@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <5acc868f-6f77-4a8d-be43-b9c926eb9c08@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <65dd1431-c6b2-42bd-bbab-27e1ad61a6c4@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <4ddebc11$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <87hb8h6s3m.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2X8Bs1k/KVMLGdvqfjIRgQ"; logging-data="18878"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yzFM0918NtGklFZJb2osa" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:PmmIf8Sr0BCzNx3ZXb5/c+xBzgM= sha1:j+Obgk2bS/yhHjrLzeLvGyNR2X8= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19524 Date: 2011-05-27T17:43:04+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes on comp.lang.ada: > Ludovic Brenta writes: > >> You'd be better off with even simpler shell scripts or, why not, >> gprmake. > > Pretty sure gprmake is obsolete now. I'm not happy that gprbuild isn't > part of GCC or in a public repo, but there you go. Yes, sorry, I meant gprbuild not gprmake. I share your feelings about the availability of the sources. -- Ludovic Brenta.