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: 103376,24ac770ebf312b7a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:54:24 -0500 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far References: <87u0gjd8kj.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:53:59 +0200 Message-ID: <87zmq7zi2g.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MsSk8JTvdDG5BwNjz9uO/kqjS8k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.134.246.205 X-Trace: sv3-lZwaHRWK2tswca1kq5cs1H0VGMz3h2jetW5O4pnVm7hwwr/xw7OuQFvfZemf0A+SFH4Q75MUwhjxJex!mN2/dgiZF6RADfsiuuX74WkmPvRFr2novLRZeyW64O/tFj1VF/+EKdkEWkUT2LQwV+X40fxi++o= X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4964 Date: 2005-09-20T20:53:59+02:00 List-Id: Here are the final results of the vote. I thought I'd leave the vote open, but so few new votes have been cast recently that the results can no longer change. Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT Adrian Wrigley -1 Andreas Schwartz -1 Björn Persson -1 Brian May 1 1 Chris Danx -1 1 David Gressett -1 David Trudgett -1 Georg Bauhaus 1 Jacob Sparre Andersen -1 1 2 Jeff Creem -1 Jeffrey Carter -1 Marc A. Criley -1 1 2 Niklas Holsti -1 Samuel Tardieu -1 1 2 Simon Clubley -1 1 2 Simon Wright 1 Stéphane Rivière -1 1 2 Tapio Kelloniemi 1 2 Wojtek Narczynski -1 1 Xavier Grave 2 1 Anonymous #1 2 1 -1 Anonymous #2 -1 Anonymous #3 -1 TOTALS: -11 6 16 0 1 And here is a summary of the arguments that were presented, in no particular order. In these summaries I've tried not to take sides, but please forgive me if I've misrepresented your own pet argument. The text below will appear in the next edition of the Debian Policy for Ada, in an appendix. If I've missed an interesting argument or if you think I am being offensive, please correct me. I've tried to keep the summaries short and to the point, at the expense of nuance. The anarchist argument: it is immoral for AdaCore to dictate how libgnat should be used; everyone should be free to use libgnat however they see fit, and the GPL uses violent but lawful means to make this impossible. Therefore, everyone should reject the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The Free Software argument: it is immoral to write non-free software; it is even more immoral to use a free software library such as libgnat in non-free software. It is appropriate to make this illegal by releasing libgnat under the GPL. Therefore, everyone should embrace GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The Other Free Software argument: we make Free Software under a license which is incompatible in some ways with the GPL (e.g. the BSD license). The GPL prohibits linking libgnat with our software and distributing our binaries. Therefore, we reject the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The selfish argument: we make commercial proprietary software with GNAT, but we cannot or will not pay for GNAT Pro. If libgnat is under GPL, we can no longer distribute our proprietary software. Therefore, we reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The interoperability argument: our software has to link with non-free software which is outside our control, and the license of which prohibits use of GPLed libraries (variant: we link with other Free libraries which are under licenses not compatible with the GPL); therefore, we are forced to reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The betrayed author's argument: I made contributions to the software that is now supported commercially by AdaCore, with the understanding that the license was the GMGPL. AdaCore revoked the special permission without consulting me. While this is specifically allowed by the GPL, I feel betrayed. Therefore, I reject the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The technical quality argument: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is the best available Ada compiler. GCC 3.4 is not as up-to-date with respect to Ada 2006, and GCC 4.0 is less stable. Therefore, we should embrace GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The marketing argument: licensing libgnat under the GPL hinders promotion of Ada, especially to small businesses. The move tries to promote Free Software at the expense of Ada. Free Software does not need much promotion while Ada does. Therefore, we should reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. *Moving forward* Given the results of the vote, I will not package GNAT GPL Edition for Debian. Given the anticipated timeline for the development of Etch (outlined below), I can do a one-, two- or three-stage transition. *Timeline for the development of Etch* Roughly speaking, the tentative timeline is: June 2005 - Sarge released. gcc-4.0 enters Etch. Transition from g++-3.3 to g++-4.0 begins for all C++ binaries. Other transitions also begin, some of which are completed already today. September 2005 - Java and Treelang compilers, and some libraries from gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 removed from Etch. April or May 2006 - GCC 4.1 released, and enters Etch soon thereafter. If good enough, becomes the default C, C++ and Java compiler, and gcc-4.0 is removed from Etch. No ABI transition: GCC 4.0 and 4.1 are both supposed to have the same ABI as 3.4. September 2006 - toolchain freeze. Only release-critical updates allowed for gcc. No ABI transitions allowed, i.e. shared libraries may not change their soname anymore. October 2006 - general freeze. Only release-critical updates allowed for all packages. December 2006 - Etch released. *Possible scenarios* One-stage transition, between May and September 2006, to gnat-4.1. Pros: less work for me. GNAT 3.15p remains available for longer for those who need a reliable ASIS and GLADE. Cons: Etch users must wait another 8 to 12 months. Must port ASIS and GLADE from GNAT GPL to a new compiler back-end: help required, I cannot do this by myself. Two-stage transition to gnat-4.0 in October-December 2005, and to gnat-4.1 as above. Pros: more immediate support for amd64, powerpc64 and several other platforms. More immediate availability of Ada 200y features. Cons: immature Ada 200y features. The compiler may prove less stable than 3.4. Must port ASIS and GLADE from GNAT GPL to a new compiler back-end: help required, I cannot do this by myself. More work. Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1. Pros: stable compiler. Allows a fall-back in case the transition to gnat-4.0 proves difficult. More immediate availability of new platforms and some Ada 200y features. ASIS and GLADE are probably easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition. Cons: the Ada 200y features in gnat-3.4 are already obsolete. Still more work to do. Any thoughts, offers to help, advice? -- Ludovic Brenta.