Re: How to nicely distribute a simple Ada library?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:22:19 +0100, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> a écrit:
> Another reason is obfuscation. Where do you find the build
> settings for this software?  Somewhere in the sources.
> […]
For readability, on the opposite (see below)

> Some software I have seen included -lsomething only because
> this was useful on the development platform at some point,
> not because the software needed "something".
Reply to both you and Dmitry: I like to use it for system library  
dependencies. When a platform provides a library which is not optional  
because it is part of the standard environment, I like to add a pragma  
Linker_Options in bodies. I see three advantages for this: first this is  
clearly visible from body source (especially if specified at the top of  
the source) and then, this applies localization principle (lack of  
localization does not help understanding), and then again, if this package  
is not used, then the linker option is automatically dropped (avoid  
unneeded dependencies). If multiple package links to the same library,  
there is no troubles anyway.

Do you (either you or Dmitry) see a serious reason to not do this way ?

I did not though about linker options in the large, only about this one:  
specify a library to be linked with the package.

The only one issue I know is linker dependency. The pragma Linker_Options  
arguments syntax is not specified by the standard. I don't know about the  
syntax used with other linkers than GNU LD.

> Perhaps options in sources is a habit imported from some
> dialect of Pascal?
Be sure, no (I've suffered to much with this to repeat the experience)

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University