Re: GCC 5.01p (was: Re: gcc/gnat 3.3)

["Jeff C," <nolongersafeto@userealemailsniff.com>]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote in message
news:m3ad7za62t.fsf_-_@insalien.org...
> "Jeff C," <nolongersafeto@userealemailsniff.com> writes:
> > Perhaps this weekend when I (hopefully) re-release my properly
> > marked GNAT 5.01p for Redhat 9 x86 I could also put together some
> > sort of Solaris (8) package.
>
> I am suspicious about this "5.01p" version number.  In my
> understanding, the "p" stands for something like "published" or
> "public", i.e. it denotes one of ACT's stable releases.  Since I am
> not aware of any 5.01p official release by ACT, I would suggest you
> use a version number that denotes that this is from CVS, such as
> e.g. 5.01.cvs.20031017.


Actually p stands for public. Since this is not just a random CVS grab at a
random time but a pull of the tagged CVS
files that were "released" for 5.01 it seems pretty reasonable..Note though
that the RPM and the directory that it
gets installed in is actually 5.01p-jmc to further differentiate it from
real real version that may or may not some day be
publically released by ACT.

Finally, I have discussed it with ACT and they were Ok with calling it 5.01p
which seems good enough for me.

But of course you are right to be suspicious about this!! Who knows who I am
or what evil lurks in the heart of
men..So, if you want a real 5.01 where someone stands behind what is
actually in it I suggest you pay several thousand dollars to ACT and get a
5.01a since even ACT does not promise anything in particular (other than it
being good
for student and reseatch use) about the "p" releases.