Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

["Björn Lundin" <b.f.lundin@gmail.com>]

On 2015-01-07 13:23, sbelmont700@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:00:48 AM UTC-5, björn lundin wrote:
>>
>> And I still do not see why changing PATH to point to different
>> compiler installations are considered DISGUSTING
> 
> Because you can't version control an environment variable.  

You must be joking ?
I maintain a somewhat largish system.
The Standard R&D version is checked out as a working copy.
So is 12 other projects tailor made for different customers based on
different version of the standard mentioned above.
Within each system, a file exists that sets different environ variables
PATH included. Each system points to the compiler the customers
has at site.

to start work, pick your project from a menu (generated from this file)
and all vital environ variables including PATH are set.

And that file, as the rest of the system is version controlled.

Don't project your ignorance on everybody else.


>A major part of change management

Do you really think that Change Management was something
the OP had in mind?
He tried to get another gnat to works with gps. That is it.

>is to ensure that the same product is built the same way, 
>with the same compiler, each and every time, e.g. if your development plan 
>says you are going to use GNAT-FSF, then you should be unable 
>(or at least have it be extraordinary hard) to compile it with GNAT-GPL 
>(or any other compiler).  With the PATH option, Joe might get a
different executable than Bob.
>Or even more dire, if Steve the admin installs a new compiler version or
>changes the directory structure, suddenly Joe and Bob silently 

Not very silently. each compiler will recompile the stuff it did not
compile itself. It will also state its version with EACH re-compiled
file. If you do not notice that, well then it is strange.

>start using a 
>different compiler and nobody notices until it's too late.  

get real.

>Now add in that Joe and Bob might each be working on multiple projects 
>that require different versions of different compilers, 
>and you'll never contain the mess. 

Yes you will. See above

And we are not just Sandy, Bob and Joe.

We are 50+ people in four different countries using this.
Commercially. Successfully.

> Solutions like gprbuild (i.e. the .cgpr file, that you can check into the tree) offer much more consistency.
Yeah, I forget .cgpr is the ONLY file type that can be version handled...

--
Björn