Re: AdaBrowse 1.5 available

[Thomas Wolf <t_wolf@angelfire.com>]

dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> I don't know enough about ASIS to know what to look for, but if you do
> you can check for yourself at
> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ada/?cvsroot=gcc

No, ASIS is not in the gcc-gnat CVS tree. So, for the time being, the
whole issue is moot anyway.

> > 
> > - I didn't care about GNU coding guidelines or whatever when I 
> >   developed AdaBrowse, so if it is to be put into the gcc-gnat
> >   CVS tree (and supposedly, into the gcc distribution), there
> >   may be some work to do in that respect.
> 
> For the most part, they are irrelevant to Ada. When I looked into it
> for one of my projects, the only one that seemed like it would be an
> issue was the requirement to keep all documentation in texinfo format.

A no-can-do for me. If it ever gets into the gcc tree, somebody else
will have to do that (and maintain it).

> It might be a good idea to recompile things with the ACT style checks
> on, but if you don't I'm sure someone else will later. :-)

Done. :-) (Except -gnatyc and -gnatys, which I don't like.) Also made
a couple of minor changes to silence -gnatwa.

> Ouch. I thought it was all GPL. That could be a serious problem.

I wasn't aware that the FSF thinks the ACL (or the Perl Artistic
License) had problems. I just chose the ACL because it seems to work
well for the Ada 95 Booch components.

It's not a big issue for me, and the GMGPL does indeed, as you point
out, accomplish the same goals. So I changed the licenses on these
few files (easy to do, since it's all mine -- no third parties
involved). AdaBrowse 1.51 (now at the URL
<http://home.tiscalinet.ch/t_wolf/tw/ada95/adabrowse/>)
contains all these changes (code clean-up and using the GMGPL instead
of the ACL for the generally useful files). It has also a simple 
Makefile now. 

So the license at least shouldn't be an issue anymore when and if ever
AdaBrowse should be checked-in into the gcc-gnat CVS tree.

But remember, first ASIS-for-GNAT has to get in there! Why was it
omitted in the first place?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wolf                          e-mail: t_wolf@angelfire.com