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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5a423f2d50e9a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-11-20 17:50:20 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sienna.impulse.net!news.netcologne.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Where is the Ada for LINUX Team site? Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:42:04 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Message-ID: <8vcjtb$ees$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8v9klo$rgl$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <8v9vgk$v8j$06$1@news.t-online.com> <8va26k$bqb$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8vbhu4$fqh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.240 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 21 01:42:04 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x71.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.240 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:2306 Date: 2000-11-21T01:42:04+00:00 List-Id: In article <8vbhu4$fqh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison asked about the location of the discussion thread. The thread in question is "Why not gnat Ada in gcc?" and the list is gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/. The entire relevant discussion is in this list. The confusion apparently arose because Juergen was not following this list, but got concerned when someone sent him some out of context messages. The ironic thing is that the actual dynamics was complaints from Richard Stallman about ACT's behavior. He was concerned that NOT providing RPM's meant we were not doing our job :-) It was in that context that I explained why we were not directly distributing the RPM's in question! No one was saying that these RPM's were somehow evil, just that they made decisions that resulted in a non-conforming implementation, and we have an obligation from the validation procedures not to distribute compilers that do not pass the validation suite. The whole matter will eventually be OBE when we can provide RPM's which DO have full functionality, which is in our plans for the near future. Meanwhile, the existing RPM's are very useful for a lot of people, and we have often pointed users of the public version in this direction, since especially for casual users and students, the convenience of the RPM's far outweighs the fairly obscure issues of non-conformance. It is one of the advantages of the open source distribution model that even though we restricted our distributions to (arguably less convenient, but more strictly conforming) non-RPM versions, volunteers were able to take a different approach that met other needs. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.