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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,15ce5e046cd0b91d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-08 04:06:11 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!grolier!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada for OS/2
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 13:04:39 +0200
Organization: CDL
Message-ID: 
 <Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-PkRzfB6v5RjF@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>
References: <3B417021.A68938D2@eyup.org>
 <cUwZzZKf1ety-pn2-bds3j7eNhFwd@pc2-luto3-0-cust142.lut.cable.ntl.com>
 <3B41A4C7.E819C1E3@eyup.org> <20010704114900.48bc8b38.McCratch@gmx.net>
 <3B431D22.C20FF8BD@eyup.org> <u7kxnfrm6.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <0fqDUcnQj8JQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <5ee5b646.0107051341.2a0d4b42@posting.google.com>
 <a%k17.9629$Kf3.106035@www.newsranger.com>
 <Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-uCtRxTNVD6K6@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>
 <3B470ED2.9CA17CBE@eyup.org>
Reply-To: dwparsons@t-online.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 994590279 01 31866 56KfSMxXSN-2BT 010708 11:04:39
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 0802493406-0001@t-dialin.net
User-Agent: ProNews/2 V1.51.ib104
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9636
Date: 2001-07-08T13:04:39+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:29:56, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

> Dave Parsons wrote:
> 
> > True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it
> > is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary
> > which would in turn have to be tested.
> > If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested
> > anymore?
> > If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any private
> > builds?
> 
> This sounds like a moot point since no one apart, from the GNAT developers, appears
> to be able to build an OS/2 version...
> 

We will have to wait and see...

BTW, thanks for getting me off the list whilst I was away. I resubscribed
yesterday.
Did you find out why it failed to remove me although it said that it had?

-- 
Dave