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: 103376,3cfb384718eb4f7a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Subject: Re: Linux/POSIX packages for GNAT
Date: 1998/02/23
Message-ID: <m3vhu7uhil.fsf@fred.muc.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 327697676
Distribution: world
Sender: andi@fred.muc.de
References: <34EEFF9C.1D01FA5D@stellar1.com> <1998Feb21.194544.1@eisner>
 <34ef8225.83906260@enews.newsguy.com> <34F007C5.7D9F2D7@cl.cam.ac.uk>
 <dewar.888187538@merv>
Organization: [posted via] Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> <<What is urgently missing for real Linux system development is Linux
> low-level access as well as an implementation of the full POSIX.5
> Ada API. Has this already been done somewhere or is any work on
> this in progress?
> 
> How widely implemented is the POSIX.5 API (standardized Ada versions
> of the common Unix system calls) anyway?
> >>
> 
> 
> Interesting to see these two paragraphs next to one another. The first
> claims it is urgent to implement the full POSIX.5 Ada API. The second
> asks how widely implemented this package is.
> 
> Perhaps the question should be answered before the urgency is declared :-)

Why? I don't see a connection. urgency of needing something is not directly 
connected to wide deployment of the same thing.

-Andi