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, 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 From: Ted Dennison Subject: Re: Where is the Ada for LINUX Team site? Date: 2000/11/21 Message-ID: <8venks$634$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 696302498 References: <8v9klo$rgl$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <8v9vgk$v8j$06$1@news.t-online.com> <8va26k$bqb$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8vbhu4$fqh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8vcjtb$ees$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x65.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 21 20:58:09 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtedennison Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001010 Date: 2000-11-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <8vcjtb$ees$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar wrote: > In article <8vbhu4$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/. Ahhh. So it wasn't "the main gnu list", but rather the main gcc list. Not precicely a list I'd expect a RPM packager to subscribe to, unless they are in the habit of subscribing to random lists out of paranoia. > 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. I read through the thread, and I certianly saw no mention of ACT planning to start making their own RPMs. There was one message in particular ( http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-11/msg00259.html ) that, taken out of context, could lead one to believe that though. Perhaps that's what happened. There were several messages in there from RMS marvelling that there would be a need for a separate group to support the Gnu Ada compiler on GNU/Linux platforms. But all of the messages I saw from ACT personel were *defending* that group's (ALT) right and need to exist. > 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 looked to me more like RMS just didn't know that RPM's were ALT's focus, and thought (probably due to their name) that they might be a group created to make the GNU Ada compiler workable on GNU/Linux systems. Once RPMs were mentioned, his position seemed to be that they (RPM's) aren't really an issue he cares about, and in any event Debian packages should be supported by GNU projects before RPMs are. However, there were some side grumblings in there about how ALT was originally supposed to be doing much more. (perhaps even maintaining the GNAT source tree?). It certianly looks like there has been some extra discord between ALT and ACT that wasn't explictly talked about much. I have to wonder if some of Jurgen's problems aren't related to that, with the RPM thing (misunderstanding?) just being the "final straw"... -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.