Re: Ada package registry?

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

> My vision of Ada is of a language in which to construct code that is
portable across implementations and across targets. To the extent that a tool, no matter how well-intentioned, interfers with that, then it is harmful to the future of Ada.


I don't think anyone here wants to interfere with that vision. Especially considering that it is generally agreed that the single free implementation (GNAT) isn't good for Ada.

> GNAT /= Ada!!

Agreed.
And most here don't think that it would be good if it were.

> What I heard being discussed only seemed to make sense within the context of GNAT on Linux, because that's the only place where "package managers" make sense.

I think that it depends on what the definition is. Given that early on in the thread the perl packag emanager (CPAN) was cited, it seems that the Linux idea of package manager was not intended -- the subject of the thread concurs -- I think what is being talked about could be described as an "online library".

If that is the case, I would recomend:
1) an internal representation, instead of text, which can be verified as consistant/compiled. [This may require a standard way to define an Ada project.]
2) a method (header-field?) marking the license(s) that the contained sources are under [to help w/ filtering, as well as making it feasable for non open source distribution].
3) a method for marking dependencies. (Also a header field?)
4) versioning. (To include changes impacting #2 & #3)
5) that building be handled separately. (Though a standard method for describing an Ada project could definately help here.)
6) that any installation (of non-Ada items) be handled separately.

While something like integrated tests would ne nice, I think they might be a bit beyond the scope of of the project. (#5 and #6 are there to both reduce the complexity and the scope of such a repository.)

> In particular, the setup Tero described would not
bother me (I'd still be worried about it providing an image of relatively inactive community by not having much in it, but that might be a risk worth taking if enough of you care).

I think any new system would have this problem. The initial populating would be the sticking point... but, arguably, the current situation is worse. (That being the exact impetus for suggesting such a repository.)

>> 3. By not acting to attract people, you are constantly redirecting smart young people to other communities, e.g Dlang. Many clever pals want to ditch C++ and Ada would be a perfect fit to foster them. Wont happen with loud voices like yours 'bullying' sensible propositions around.
>
>
> Building complicated tools to do things that aren't really needed for Ada doesn't make it a "sensible proposition". If the "young people" need too much handholding, they're not really ready to engineer software with a professional tool like Ada. (How they get anything done in C++ is beyond me!)

Does your opinion change if what is being talked about is a library/dependency manager (as described above) rather than the Linux idea of "package manager"?

>> (I work at Ubisoft Montreal. Yesterday my boss was asking about my website and I told him I did it in Ada. You know what he asked me: 'Ada... is it not an old programming language?'. By old he meant dead; Ada needs a nice haircut.) To me it looks like you want to keep Ada and the accompanying discourse for yourself. Am I wrong?
>
>
>I've put virtually my entire life into Ada, and as such I don't want others to come in and destroy the very properties that make Ada attractive in the first place. That would make my entire life a waste. I have absolutely no problem with new ideas that don't harm the good things about Ada.


I don't think anyone here wants your life to be wasted. I, for one, am quite gratful for the time and energy you have put in.


Thank you.

>. Did you know that there is an open source subset of Claw? (Probably not, we've never made that very clear on
our website.)

The trial version?