Re: ADA for OS/2

[dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons)]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:41:58, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote:

> In article <5ee5b646.0107051341.2a0d4b42@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
> says...
> >Most people will not be able to install GNAT from sources, since it
> >does indeed assume GCC expertise. It is definitely true that ACT is
> >not building public binaries for most platforms these days (our
> >current intention is to build binaries for GNU/Linux/x86 and for NT).
> >We expect that other public binaries wlil be built, distributed
> >and mirrored, by those who do know how, as happens for other GNU software.
> 
> Currently the situation is a bit warped because ACT essentially controls the
> Gnat baseline. Of course ACT doesn't *have* to do anything. But on the other
> hand, folks have been trained to expect a lot of from GNU software maintainers.
> 
> I think that once Gnat is in the GCC baseline (RSN, right?), its perfectly
> reasonable to expect the community to build its own binaries for *all*
> platforms, as well as to coordinate releases, etc. If ACT feels its in their
> best interests to contribute to that effort, then great. But they are a
> *company* and its about time we quit expecting them to do tons of stuff for us
> for free, just because we'd like it.
> 

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?

As an aside, it seems that my other preferred OS, OpenVMS, is suffering
the same fate.
All that I could find on ftp://cs.nyu.edu was 3.11p and 3.12p.

BTW, do they just mirror ACT or do they produce their own binaries?

-- 
Dave