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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fc079680c0debb41
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jerry@jvdsys.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk)
Subject: Re: GNAT Binary Distributions : GPL or Not ???
Date: 1998/12/21
Message-ID: <F4C9An.A2@jvdsys.stuyts.nl>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 424670524
References: <367D44BC.2A953A7F@Ada95SPAMHUNT.co.uk>
 <x7vpv9e9c5l.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>
 <367EBB06.AF240804@saltedchocolateballs.co.uk>
Organization: * JerryWare *, Leiden, Holland
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-12-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ada95 (Ada95@saltedchocolateballs.co.uk) wrote:

and got me sufficiently irritated to even post a reply:

: I not going to repeat myself.  Save this as well... all the answers to
: 3.10p on glibc2 were posted a year
: ago.... now look down to a  thread started by _Garath_ ( nice inoffensive
: name ) " Gnat 3.10p and
: Redhat 5.2, a year on, you must all be getting tried of this same
: question , I wonder how tried the "paid" support boys at AdaCore are of
: it  ?...................... keep that in mind as well.

So, instead of complaining, why not build and distribute one yourself ?
As GNAT is GPL, I fail to see the relevence of the negative ACT reference.

: Exactly because GNAT *ALWAYS" requires a patch to GCC, GNAT is always
: going to be supplied with its own version of GCC, which as AdaCore 
: can't keep up with those poor misguided "C" programmers, is always 
: going to be versions behind.

>From 2.8.x on, all GNAT relevant patches are included in gcc. However,
I fail to see what you you hope to archieve by using such insulting
language.

: to Brunos problem "don't use 2.8.1 gnat3.10p comes with 2.7.2.1 ! " Note
: my username "Ada95"... can
: you guess why I've created an account all for Ada95 ?

No, please tell us...

: 1)  You've got to ask yourself why the world is full of free C code
: projects, whereas the Ada world
: has zip interest ( except money) in maintaining its own compiler and
: providing free "Hassle Free Distributions".  Is it because they enjoy it
: and we Ada types have enough at the end of a working day ?

I fail to see the comparison between free C code projects and an Ada 
Compiler. There is a lot of free Ada code too.

And the Ada community _is_ provided with a free compiler (thanks to the
work done at ACT). If you feel this is not good enough, why are _you_
not improving it ?

: 2) You've also got to ask yourself who gains from a  free distribution
: which requires more than a
: little effort to install ? don't take a position ....just ask yourself
: ...who gains?  Who gains from a year of
: answering the same glibc2 problem instead of saving alot of effort and
: releasing a glibc2 compiled
: version ?

If, as you are implying, ACT does this on purpose to get support money,
and you do not like this, why not end this by supplying a glibc2 version
yourself ?

: Now I'm either one conspirancy theory short of MI6's love for Princess
: Diane, or there are a lot of
: people posting to comp.lang.ada and gnat.chat because someone doesn't
: mind it being that way.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are refering to here.

Jerry.

-- 
-- Jerry van Dijk  | email: jdijk@acm.org
-- Leiden, Holland | member Team-Ada
-- Ada & Win32: http://stad.dsl.nl/~jvandyk