GNAT for Debian

GNAT for Debian

[Francisco Javier Loma Daza]

I have seen that some Ada related packages are not being mantained on
GNU/Debian distribution, I'm right? at least on the last distribution,
the last available version for gnat is 3.14p ....
   I would like to see good Ada support in the GNU Linux distribution.

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Francisco" == Francisco Javier Loma Daza
>>>>> <fjloma@andaluciajunta.es> writes:

Francisco>    I would like to see good Ada support in the GNU Linux
Francisco>    distribution.

Feel free to join Debian and help :-)

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT for Debian

[David Holm]

On 21 Jul 2003 11:56:39 -0700
fjloma@andaluciajunta.es (Francisco Javier Loma Daza) wrote:

> I have seen that some Ada related packages are not being mantained on
> GNU/Debian distribution, I'm right? at least on the last distribution,
> the last available version for gnat is 3.14p ....
>    I would like to see good Ada support in the GNU Linux distribution.

We have great support coming in Gentoo. All ebuilds follow the GNAE standard. We are only
missing florist from having the base distribution up and running. There are lots of packages
waiting in bugzilla that will be added in a week or two.
And you don't have to worry about any broken gcc ada versions either =). There is a snapshot
release of the upcoming gcc-3 based gnat coming soon (real gnat, not the one in gcc).

//David Holm

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Georg Bauhaus]

Francisco Javier Loma Daza <fjloma@andaluciajunta.es> wrote:
: I have seen that some Ada related packages are not being mantained on
: GNU/Debian distribution, I'm right? at least on the last distribution,
: the last available version for gnat is 3.14p ....
:   I would like to see good Ada support in the GNU Linux distribution.

There is gnat-3.3 1:3.3.1-0pre0 in the testing distribution,
suggesting gnat-3.3-docs and the RM.



 -- Georg

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Francisco Javier Loma Daza wrote:
> I have seen that some Ada related packages are not being mantained on
> GNU/Debian distribution, I'm right? at least on the last distribution,
> the last available version for gnat is 3.14p ....
>    I would like to see good Ada support in the GNU Linux distribution.

gnat-3.3 is the package that is in unstable. I don't think there will be
a 3.15p although it would have been nice as long as gcc-3.x is far from
stable.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> We have great support coming in Gentoo. All ebuilds follow the GNAE
> standard. We are only missing florist from having the base
> distribution up and running. There are lots of packages waiting in
> bugzilla that will be added in a week or two.  And you don't have to
> worry about any broken gcc ada versions either =). There is a snapshot
> release of the upcoming gcc-3 based gnat coming soon (real gnat, not
> the one in gcc).

We also have gcc-3 in Debian.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[David Holm]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:03:34 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > We have great support coming in Gentoo. All ebuilds follow the GNAE
> > standard. We are only missing florist from having the base
> > distribution up and running. There are lots of packages waiting in
> > bugzilla that will be added in a week or two.  And you don't have to
> > worry about any broken gcc ada versions either =). There is a snapshot
> > release of the upcoming gcc-3 based gnat coming soon (real gnat, not
> > the one in gcc).
> 
> We also have gcc-3 in Debian.

Yes, we don't. That version is broken, the reason I left debian for gentoo was the poor ada
support. (Old unmaintained packages, gcc-3 instead of gnat etc).
But lets not turn this into a flamewar, I will not continue the discussion. But for anyone
interested in ada I'm just asking that you have a look at what gentoo will provide you with in a
week or two before deciding which distribution suits you best.

//David Holm

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> Yes, we don't. That version is broken, the reason I left debian for

Oh, how come I'm using it now then if it doesn't work?

> gentoo was the poor ada support. (Old unmaintained packages, gcc-3
> instead of gnat etc). 

Whatever are you talking about? gcc-3 in stead of gnat?

> But lets not turn this into a flamewar, I will not continue the
> discussion. But for anyone interested in ada I'm just asking that you
> have a look at what gentoo will provide you with in a week or two
> before deciding which distribution suits you best.

With Gentoo you need a fast computer and lots of disc space as you have
to compile everything yourself. My 166MHz at home would waste about a
month before I could do any Ada programming.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[David Holm]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:16:13 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > Yes, we don't. That version is broken, the reason I left debian for
> 
> Oh, how come I'm using it now then if it doesn't work?

Someone on this list sent me a sample using timers a while ago. Works perfectly with gnat 3.14p
and 3.15p but when compiled with the version of gnat in gcc (which debian uses, 3.3 based or
whatever) it would fail with a constraint exception. There are many more things than timers
broken but I have not seen any tests for other stuff.
And there is talk of lots of code having been removed before the patch was submitted to gcc as
the real gnat did some funny stuff to the C++ part of gcc. I'm not sure if this is true or not
but I've heard it from a couple of different sources now.
As you can see from gcc's cvsweb Ada-code hasn't been updated in two months:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ada/?cvsroot=gcc
But ACT's CVS is updated about every other day, often with changes made to the gcc patch (the
ada code is separate from the gcc code-changes).
There are also some alarming threads on the gcc mailinglist where it's made obvious that people
(including gcc maintainers) aren't very interested in Ada.
This is one such thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-10/msg00003.html
I recon their consider it just another adition to their list of support languages and don't care
much more. Personally I use Ada because I know what it can do to an applications stability,
therefore I also want it to be maintained by someone who respects that, namely ACT, not GNU.

If you are interested in the real version of gnat based on gcc3 the cvs is here:
:pserver:anoncvs@libre.act-europe.fr:/anoncvs (module gnat)

The fact debian chose to use gcc-3.3 (from gnu) over building a snapshot from the cvs shows that
their ada maintainer is not overly interested in Ada (any more?). I switched from FreeBSD where
the Ada maintainer is very strict when it comes to what to add and not to add regarding
ada-stuff. I was expecting something similar from Debian since that is the way I found debian to
be a few years ago (before I knew Ada). I guess it's problematic to find good maintainers these
days though, especially when it comes to Ada. It's not exactly popular (at least in my school),
apart from one or two of the doctoral students I seem to be the only one using it.

> With Gentoo you need a fast computer and lots of disc space as you have
> to compile everything yourself. My 166MHz at home would waste about a
> month before I could do any Ada programming.

True, it is not for you then maybe. Perhaps you should take over the position as Ada maintainer
in Debian or find someone else motivated to do it. The current maintainer didn't seem motivated
to me.

//David Holm

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Francisco Javier Loma Daza]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbhpvcp.mu.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> Francisco Javier Loma Daza wrote:
> > I have seen that some Ada related packages are not being mantained on
> > GNU/Debian distribution, I'm right? at least on the last distribution,
> > the last available version for gnat is 3.14p ....
> >    I would like to see good Ada support in the GNU Linux distribution.
> 
> gnat-3.3 is the package that is in unstable. I don't think there will be
> a 3.15p although it would have been nice as long as gcc-3.x is far from
> stable.

I would like to see 3.15p on Debian. I will contribute ;)

Thanks

P.D: Thanks to Samuel for his work with gnat for Debian

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Francisco" == Francisco Javier Loma Daza <fjloma@andaluciajunta.es> writes:

Francisco> P.D: Thanks to Samuel for his work with gnat for Debian

Note that I don't participate to Debian anymore (which explains why
packages were never updated to GNAT 3.15p).

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> But ACT's CVS is updated about every other day, often with changes
> made to the gcc patch (the ada code is separate from the gcc
> code-changes).  There are also some alarming threads on the gcc
> mailinglist where it's made obvious that people (including gcc
> maintainers) aren't very interested in Ada. This is one such thread:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-10/msg00003.html

I don't agree with you on that. I didn't have time to read the whole
thread but after the first dusine posts I didn't get that impression.

> I recon their consider it just another adition to their list of
> support languages and don't care much more. Personally I use Ada
> because I know what it can do to an applications stability, therefore
> I also want it to be maintained by someone who respects that, namely
> ACT, not GNU.

It is not GNU that does the development of the Ada part it is ACT.

> If you are interested in the real version of gnat based on gcc3 the
> cvs is here:
>:pserver:anoncvs@libre.act-europe.fr:/anoncvs (module gnat)

Interesting.

> The fact debian chose to use gcc-3.3 (from gnu) over building a
> snapshot from the cvs shows that their ada maintainer is not overly
> interested in Ada (any more?). 

No it is just that Samuel (thanks for the work by the way!) stopped
making debian packages after Gnat 3.14p. I guess we could build a
gnat-3.15p, but personally I do not have the time (and I have to learn
to build debian packages as well) at the moment. Hopefully later this
fall.

> I switched from FreeBSD where the Ada maintainer is very strict when
> it comes to what to add and not to add regarding ada-stuff. I was
> expecting something similar from Debian since that is the way I found
> debian to be a few years ago (before I knew Ada). I guess it's
> problematic to find good maintainers these days though, especially
> when it comes to Ada. It's not exactly popular (at least in my
> school), apart from one or two of the doctoral students I seem to be
> the only one using it.

Most distributions make gnat compilers from the gcc 3.x brance. So a lot
of problems would go away if this could come up to speed with ACTs CVS.
At the moment we are in a limbo between 3.15p and some stable gnat in
the future. The problem is that a buggy gnat won't make more people
interested in developing in Ada.

> True, it is not for you then maybe. Perhaps you should take over the
> position as Ada maintainer in Debian or find someone else motivated to
> do it. The current maintainer didn't seem motivated to me.

If others would help it would be nice. I guess one had to consult
Debian, but making a gnat-3.15p and then gnat-X-act-cvs versions until
gcc-3 is stable wouldn't be preferable. I agree on this. However I guess
it would be nice to know also what the roadmap for gcc-3 and ACT are in
this respect.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>> "Francisco" == Francisco Javier Loma Daza <fjloma@andaluciajunta.es> writes:
> 
>Francisco> P.D: Thanks to Samuel for his work with gnat for Debian
> 
> Note that I don't participate to Debian anymore (which explains why
> packages were never updated to GNAT 3.15p).

How hard is it to make a Gnat 3.15p package? Could one use the Gnat
3.14p as a base ?

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Preben" == Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

Preben> How hard is it to make a Gnat 3.15p package? Could one use the
Preben> Gnat 3.14p as a base ?

Answers are: it depends on your skills. Sure.

The first thing to do is to reproduce the Debian package
structure with GCC 2.8.1:

  gcc-2.8.1
      |
      +--------gnat-3.15p-src
      |
      +--------ada
      
by moving gnat-3.15p-src/src/ada two levels up. Then apply
gnat-3.15p-src/src/gcc281.dif with -p0 into gcc-2.8.1.

Then apply Debian patch and fix failing parts. Use 3.15p where 3.14p
was used. Add new platform depend files into the Makefiles if needed
(for example, SparcLinux is not if I remember correctly a natively
supported configuration).

The build and enjoy :-)

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> If others would help it would be nice. I guess one had to consult
> Debian, but making a gnat-3.15p and then gnat-X-act-cvs versions until
> gcc-3 is stable wouldn't be preferable. I agree on this. However I guess

Oops typo: until gcc-3 is stable would be preferable.


-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>> "Preben" == Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> 
>Preben> How hard is it to make a Gnat 3.15p package? Could one use the
>Preben> Gnat 3.14p as a base ?
> 
> Answers are: it depends on your skills. Sure.
> 
> The first thing to do is to reproduce the Debian package
> structure with GCC 2.8.1:
> 
>   gcc-2.8.1
>       |
>       +--------gnat-3.15p-src
>       |
>       +--------ada
>       
> by moving gnat-3.15p-src/src/ada two levels up. Then apply
> gnat-3.15p-src/src/gcc281.dif with -p0 into gcc-2.8.1.
> 
> Then apply Debian patch and fix failing parts. Use 3.15p where 3.14p
> was used. Add new platform depend files into the Makefiles if needed
> (for example, SparcLinux is not if I remember correctly a natively
> supported configuration).

Thanks! I know somebody posted earlier where to find gcc-2.8.1 but i
don't manage to find this post now with google. Do you know where it can
be found? I noticed that the patches are different between Gnat 3.14p
and 3.15p so I cannot use the source of the gnat-3.14p debian pacakge I
suppose.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[David Holm]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:00:00 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > But ACT's CVS is updated about every other day, often with changes
> > made to the gcc patch (the ada code is separate from the gcc
> > code-changes).  There are also some alarming threads on the gcc
> > mailinglist where it's made obvious that people (including gcc
> > maintainers) aren't very interested in Ada. This is one such thread:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-10/msg00003.html
> >
> I don't agree with you on that. I didn't have time to read the whole
> thread but after the first dusine posts I didn't get that impression.

It was a bad example, there are better, more recent threads. I just picked the first one I
found.

> > I recon their consider it just another adition to their list of
> > support languages and don't care much more. Personally I use Ada
> > because I know what it can do to an applications stability, therefore
> > I also want it to be maintained by someone who respects that, namely
> > ACT, not GNU.
> 
> It is not GNU that does the development of the Ada part it is ACT.

But GNU decides what to accept from ACTs patches and what not to accept. They do not blindly
apply code that come from ACT. Since ACT is striving for maximum Ada stability it is likely that
when GNU-people remove code they will go further away from that goal or otherwise there would be
no need for separate codebases.

> > I switched from FreeBSD where the Ada maintainer is very strict when
> > it comes to what to add and not to add regarding ada-stuff. I was
> > expecting something similar from Debian since that is the way I found
> > debian to be a few years ago (before I knew Ada). I guess it's
> > problematic to find good maintainers these days though, especially
> > when it comes to Ada. It's not exactly popular (at least in my
> > school), apart from one or two of the doctoral students I seem to be
> > the only one using it.
> 
> Most distributions make gnat compilers from the gcc 3.x brance. So a lot
> of problems would go away if this could come up to speed with ACTs CVS.
> At the moment we are in a limbo between 3.15p and some stable gnat in
> the future. The problem is that a buggy gnat won't make more people
> interested in developing in Ada.

But providing only gcc-3.x based Ada compilers won't make the distribution attractive to
knowledgable Ada developers either. Which was my point. The average Joe who only needs it for a
school assignment won't care which version he uses. Which is why I brought the issue up here,
those of us who know Ada should make sure our distributions do things right. It is just too
common for people to become blinded by version numbers.

> > True, it is not for you then maybe. Perhaps you should take over the
> > position as Ada maintainer in Debian or find someone else motivated to
> > do it. The current maintainer didn't seem motivated to me.
> 
> If others would help it would be nice. I guess one had to consult
> Debian, but making a gnat-3.15p and then gnat-X-act-cvs versions until
> gcc-3 is stable wouldn't be preferable. I agree on this. However I guess
> it would be nice to know also what the roadmap for gcc-3 and ACT are in
> this respect.

From what I have read recently (although I don't follow the gcc-mailinglists much) it seems that
they are more intent on keeping C/C++ etc stable which is likely to impair Ada development since
the ACT patch affecting non-ada stuff is growing.
One day there might be two different branches, ACT who is going for stability and GCC where
people can freely submit patches moving Ada stuff forward at a faster pace. I wouldn't bet my
money on gcc-3 in the near future though. Unless there is a real good reason to use ada from
gcc-3 I will stick with the ordinary gnat releases.

On a sidenote, if you or anyone else is interested in building gnat-3.15p packages I could mail
you the build procedure I'm using in gentoo. I've found it rather difficult to build properly
without lots of extra stuff going on around it. I'm also working on a build process for ACT cvs
snapshots, seems they added more fuss to it which changes the buildprocess somewhat.

//David Holm 

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Thanks! I know somebody posted earlier where to find gcc-2.8.1 but i
> don't manage to find this post now with google. Do you know where it can
> be found? I noticed that the patches are different between Gnat 3.14p
> and 3.15p so I cannot use the source of the gnat-3.14p debian pacakge I
> suppose.

Found it at gnu. *BONK*


-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> But GNU decides what to accept from ACTs patches and what not to
> accept. They do not blindly apply code that come from ACT. Since ACT
> is striving for maximum Ada stability it is likely that when
> GNU-people remove code they will go further away from that goal or
> otherwise there would be no need for separate codebases.

I don't know but I would expect that the GNU people only review what the
changes involve with regards to the rest of gcc? Are there people in GNU
that has enough knowledge of gnat to review the code?

> But providing only gcc-3.x based Ada compilers won't make the
> distribution attractive to knowledgable Ada developers either. Which
> was my point. 

I agree with you. We need 3.15p

> From what I have read recently (although I don't follow the
> gcc-mailinglists much) it seems that they are more intent on keeping
> C/C++ etc stable which is likely to impair Ada development since the
> ACT patch affecting non-ada stuff is growing.  One day there might be
> two different branches, ACT who is going for stability and GCC where
> people can freely submit patches moving Ada stuff forward at a faster
> pace. I wouldn't bet my money on gcc-3 in the near future though.
> Unless there is a real good reason to use ada from gcc-3 I will stick
> with the ordinary gnat releases.

Perhaps it will be like the the gs package where there is one also for
gs-aladin.

> On a sidenote, if you or anyone else is interested in building
> gnat-3.15p packages I could mail you the build procedure I'm using in
> gentoo. I've found it rather difficult to build properly without lots
> of extra stuff going on around it. I'm also working on a build
> process for ACT cvs snapshots, seems they added more fuss to it which
> changes the buildprocess somewhat.

Would be great. Could you put it somewhere on the net too?

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[David Holm]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:03:47 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > But GNU decides what to accept from ACTs patches and what not to
> > accept. They do not blindly apply code that come from ACT. Since ACT
> > is striving for maximum Ada stability it is likely that when
> > GNU-people remove code they will go further away from that goal or
> > otherwise there would be no need for separate codebases.
> 
> I don't know but I would expect that the GNU people only review what the
> changes involve with regards to the rest of gcc? Are there people in GNU
> that has enough knowledge of gnat to review the code?

Not sure, but they review all changes made to the C-code of gcc. If they don't like what they
see ACT would have to modify and send a new patch. I doubt they would spend much time fixing
such stuff as it isn't bugs to gnat only to gcc and they have more important stuff to do.

> > From what I have read recently (although I don't follow the
> > gcc-mailinglists much) it seems that they are more intent on keeping
> > C/C++ etc stable which is likely to impair Ada development since the
> > ACT patch affecting non-ada stuff is growing.  One day there might be
> > two different branches, ACT who is going for stability and GCC where
> > people can freely submit patches moving Ada stuff forward at a faster
> > pace. I wouldn't bet my money on gcc-3 in the near future though.
> > Unless there is a real good reason to use ada from gcc-3 I will stick
> > with the ordinary gnat releases.
> 
> Perhaps it will be like the the gs package where there is one also for
> gs-aladin.

We also considered this. But at the moment there is no point in having both a snapshot of gnat
and gcc-3/ada as gnat has everything of gcc-3/ada and more.

> > On a sidenote, if you or anyone else is interested in building
> > gnat-3.15p packages I could mail you the build procedure I'm using in
> > gentoo. I've found it rather difficult to build properly without lots
> > of extra stuff going on around it. I'm also working on a build
> > process for ACT cvs snapshots, seems they added more fuss to it which
> > changes the buildprocess somewhat.
> 
> Would be great. Could you put it somewhere on the net too?

I'll post it here, then it will live in groups.google.com forever ;). It's not a document, only
the steps taken by the gentoo ebuild to compile and install gnat 3.15p. I will cut out
non-relevant stuff (there might be typos as I translated variables manually).

# Copyright 1999-2003 Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2

Files needed:
gnat-3.15p-src.tgz
gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-redhat71-gnu-bin.tar.gz
gcc-2.8.1.tar.bz2

src_unpack() {
	unpack ${A}

	# Install the bootstrap compiler
	cd /tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin
	echo $'\n'3$'\n'/tmp/gnat/boot'\n' | ./doconfig > doconfig.log 2>&1
	./doinstall

	# Prepare the gcc source directory
	cd /tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1
	patch -p0 < "/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-src/src/gcc-281.dif"
	touch cstamp-h.in
	mv "/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-src/src/ada" "${S}"
	# Make sure we install it as gnatgcc/gnatgcov as not to overwrite gcc/gcov
	for i in `find ${S}/ada -name '*.ad[sb]'`; do \
		sed -i -e "s/\"gcc\"/\"gnatgcc\"/g" ${i}; \
	done
	cd "/tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1/ada"
	touch treeprs.ads a-[es]info.h nmake.ad[bs]
}

src_compile() {
	# Set some paths to our bootstrap compiler.
	export GCC_EXEC_PREFIX="/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1"
	export ADA_INCLUDE_PATH="/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1/adainclude"
	export ADA_OBJECTS_PATH="/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1/adalib"
	OLDPATH="${PATH}"
	export PATH="/tmp/gnat/boot/bin:${PATH}"
	export LDFLAGS="-L/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1
-L/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin"

	# Make $local_prefix point to $prefix
	sed -i -e "s/@local_prefix@/@prefix@/" "/tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1/Makefile.in"

	# Configure gcc
	cd /tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1
	./configure --prefix=/usr --program-prefix=gnat \
		--host="${CHOST}" --build="${CHOST}" --target="${CHOST}" \
		--infodir=/usr/share/info \
		--mandir=/usr/share/man

	# Make sure we don't overwrite the existing gcc
	sed -i -e "s/\$(bindir)\/gcov/\$(bindir)\/gnatgcov/" "/tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1/Makefile"
	sed -i -e "s/alias)-gcc/alias)-gnatgcc/g" "/tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1/Makefile"

	# Compile it by first using the bootstrap compiler and then bootstrapping
	# our own version. Finally compile the libraries and tools.
	make CC="gcc" LANGUAGES="c ada gcov"
	make CC="gcc" LANGUAGES="c ada gcov" bootstrap
	make CC="gcc" GNATLIBCFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" gnatlib
	make CC="gcc" gnattools

}

src_install() {
	export PATH="/tmp/gnat/boot/bin:${PATH}"
	export LDFLAGS="-L/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1
-L/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin"

	# Install gnatgcc, tools and native threads library
	make LANGUAGES="c ada gcov" GCC_INSTALL_NAME=gnatgcc \
		install-common install-libgcc install-gnatlib install-driver
	touch "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1/include/float.h"

	# Install the FSU threads library
	cd "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1"
	mkdir rts-native
	mkdir rts-fsu

	# Copy the native threads library
	mv adalib adainclude rts-native
	cd /tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1
	rm stamp-gnatlib1

	# Compile and install the FSU threads library
	make CC=gcc CFLAGS="-O2" GNATLIBCFLAGS="-fPIC -O2" THREAD_KIND=fsu gnatlib
	make install-gnatlib
	cd "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1"
	mv adalib adainclude rts-fsu

	# Install the precompiled FSU library from the binary distribution
	cp "/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin/libgthreads.a"
"/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1"
	cp "/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin/libmalloc.a"
"/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1"
}

pkg_postinst() {
	# Make native threads the default runtime system
	ln -sf "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1/rts-native/adalib" \
		"/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1/"
	ln -sf "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1/rts-native/adainclude" \
		"/usr/lib/gcc-lib/${CHOST}/2.8.1/"
}


//David Holm

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> 	# Install the bootstrap compiler
> 	cd /tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin

I expect I can use the gnat 3.14p for this.

> 		sed -i -e "s/\"gcc\"/\"gnatgcc\"/g" ${i}; \

What does the -i flag do? It is not in the sed on Debian.
> 	export LDFLAGS="-L/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1
> -L/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin"

Hmm Not sure where I should point the last -L too.

> 		--host="${CHOST}" --build="${CHOST}" --target="${CHOST}" \

What is CHOST?

echo $CHOST returns nothing

> 	# Compile it by first using the bootstrap compiler and then bootstrapping
> 	# our own version. Finally compile the libraries and tools.
> 	make CC="gcc" LANGUAGES="c ada gcov"

I see. I changed it to CC="gnatgcc" as the 3.14p debian package calles
it gnatgcc. I have come this far down the process. It it compiling now. last 

> 	make CC="gcc" LANGUAGES="c ada gcov" bootstrap

Ok Doing this now.

> 	make CC="gcc" GNATLIBCFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" gnatlib

I don't find that the CFLAGS are set anywhere.


-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[David Holm]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:14:11 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > 	# Install the bootstrap compiler
> > 	cd /tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin
> 
> I expect I can use the gnat 3.14p for this.
> 
> > 		sed -i -e "s/\"gcc\"/\"gnatgcc\"/g" ${i}; \
> 
> What does the -i flag do? It is not in the sed on Debian.

Interactive mode. Without it you have to echo the output of sed to another file and then move
the new file over the old one.

> > 	export LDFLAGS="-L/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1
> > -L/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin"
> 
> Hmm Not sure where I should point the last -L too.

The bootstrap-compiler installer dir.

> > 		--host="${CHOST}" --build="${CHOST}" --target="${CHOST}" \
> 
> What is CHOST?

i686-pc-linux-gnu most of the time ;)
 
> echo $CHOST returns nothing
> 
> > 	# Compile it by first using the bootstrap compiler and then bootstrapping
> > 	# our own version. Finally compile the libraries and tools.
> > 	make CC="gcc" LANGUAGES="c ada gcov"
> 
> I see. I changed it to CC="gnatgcc" as the 3.14p debian package calles
> it gnatgcc. I have come this far down the process. It it compiling now. last 
> 
> > 	make CC="gcc" LANGUAGES="c ada gcov" bootstrap
> 
> Ok Doing this now.
> 
> > 	make CC="gcc" GNATLIBCFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" gnatlib
> 
> I don't find that the CFLAGS are set anywhere.

They are set automatically in Gentoo according to the users specification as to get optimum
performance for his/hers machine.

//David Holm

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:14:11 +0000 (UTC)
> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:
> 
>> David Holm wrote:
>> > 	# Install the bootstrap compiler
>> > 	cd /tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin
>> 
>> I expect I can use the gnat 3.14p for this.
>> 
>> > 		sed -i -e "s/\"gcc\"/\"gnatgcc\"/g" ${i}; \
>> 
>> What does the -i flag do? It is not in the sed on Debian.
> 
> Interactive mode. Without it you have to echo the output of sed to
> another file and then move the new file over the old one.

Arg! Ok should not be hard to fix, but it means I have to start all over
again. :-)

Well actually it is ok as I think the debian package uses patching.

>> > 	export
>> > 	LDFLAGS="-L/tmp/gnat/boot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.8.1
>> > 	-L/tmp/gnat/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin"
>> 
>> Hmm Not sure where I should point the last -L too.
> 
> The bootstrap-compiler installer dir.

which is /usr

> 
>> > 		--host="${CHOST}" --build="${CHOST}" --target="${CHOST}" \
>> 
>> What is CHOST?
> 
> i686-pc-linux-gnu most of the time ;)

ok i386.

> They are set automatically in Gentoo according to the users
> specification as to get optimum performance for his/hers machine.

So I can skip it.

Ok let's try again :-)
-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Matthew Woodcraft]

David Holm wrote:
>But GNU decides what to accept from ACTs patches and what not to
>accept. They do not blindly apply code that come from ACT. Since ACT
>is striving for maximum Ada stability it is likely that when
>GNU-people remove code they will go further away from that goal or
>otherwise there would be no need for separate codebases.

At the moment, there are two separate trees because ACT aren't
submitting patches to gcc, not because the gcc people are refusing
patches.

-M-

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

FYI, I've started to package GNAT 3.15p for Debian today.  I'm having
a few problems with Samuel's build scripts because the build procedure
has changed between 3.14p and 3.15p.  I've made some progress though
and I'll report back for those interested.  As part of this process,
I've re-applied Samuel's Debian-specific patches to the sources where
applicable.

The problems I'm having are in the "tools" area.  The compiler,
gnatlib and gnarl (static and shared) all appear to build properly.
However, for some reason, the tools are statically linked against
libgnat.a, and also I can't build gnatmem because libaddr2line is
missing.  I'm investigating this now.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Chris M. Moore]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:50:25 GMT, David Holm <david@realityrift.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>	# Make sure we install it as gnatgcc/gnatgcov as not to overwrite gcc/gcov
>	for i in `find ${S}/ada -name '*.ad[sb]'`; do \
>		sed -i -e "s/\"gcc\"/\"gnatgcc\"/g" ${i}; \
>	done

<snip>

>	# Make sure we don't overwrite the existing gcc
>	sed -i -e "s/\$(bindir)\/gcov/\$(bindir)\/gnatgcov/" "/tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1/Makefile"
>	sed -i -e "s/alias)-gcc/alias)-gnatgcc/g" "/tmp/gnat/gcc-2.8.1/Makefile"

<snip>

>	# Install gnatgcc, tools and native threads library
>	make LANGUAGES="c ada gcov" GCC_INSTALL_NAME=gnatgcc \
>		install-common install-libgcc install-gnatlib install-driver

Instead of doing these edits etc might it not be better to build gnat
as gcc but install it in a separate directory (/opt/gnat?) and put
Simon Wright's gnatfe script (see http://www.pushface.org/gnatfe/) in
/usr/bin?

--
Chris M. Moore
Software engineer
speaking for myself

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Chris M. Moore wrote:
> Instead of doing these edits etc might it not be better to build gnat
> as gcc but install it in a separate directory (/opt/gnat?) and put
> Simon Wright's gnatfe script (see http://www.pushface.org/gnatfe/) in
> /usr/bin?

No!

It is much better to have gnatgcc gnatmake etc! Then it makes everything
work without any hickup or tricky setup.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Chris M. Moore wrote:
>> Instead of doing these edits etc might it not be better to build gnat
>> as gcc but install it in a separate directory (/opt/gnat?) and put
>> Simon Wright's gnatfe script (see http://www.pushface.org/gnatfe/) in
>> /usr/bin?
> 
> No!
> 
> It is much better to have gnatgcc gnatmake etc! Then it makes everything
> work without any hickup or tricky setup.

Or to say it in another way: Better to solve the problem than to patch
the symptoms.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Chris M. Moore]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:13:01 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

>Chris M. Moore wrote:
>> Instead of doing these edits etc might it not be better to build gnat
>> as gcc but install it in a separate directory (/opt/gnat?) and put
>> Simon Wright's gnatfe script (see http://www.pushface.org/gnatfe/) in
>> /usr/bin?
>
>No!
>
>It is much better to have gnatgcc gnatmake etc! Then it makes everything
>work without any hickup or tricky setup.

But this script provides gnatgcc, gnatmake etc.  /usr/bin/gnatgcc and
/usr/bin/gnatmake would both be symbolic links to the gnatfe script.
This script magically transforms gnatgcc to gcc and gnatmake to
gnatmake but using the versions in the alternate directory.

Surely it's better to do this outside of gnat rather than doing a
global edit on the source.

--
Chris M. Moore
Software engineer
speaking for myself

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Chris M. Moore wrote:
> But this script provides gnatgcc, gnatmake etc.  /usr/bin/gnatgcc and
> /usr/bin/gnatmake would both be symbolic links to the gnatfe script.
> This script magically transforms gnatgcc to gcc and gnatmake to
> gnatmake but using the versions in the alternate directory.

So?

> Surely it's better to do this outside of gnat rather than doing a
> global edit on the source.

Why?

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Chris M. Moore]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:47:23 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

>Chris M. Moore wrote:
>> But this script provides gnatgcc, gnatmake etc.  /usr/bin/gnatgcc and
>> /usr/bin/gnatmake would both be symbolic links to the gnatfe script.
>> This script magically transforms gnatgcc to gcc and gnatmake to
>> gnatmake but using the versions in the alternate directory.
>
>So?
>
>> Surely it's better to do this outside of gnat rather than doing a
>> global edit on the source.
>
>Why?

It seems cleaner, less work and more maintainable to build gnat as
intended and then to front-end the compiler than to PATCH the
source/Makefiles to generate gnatgcc executables.  But if you want to
do it the hard way then I won't refuse to use your package.  ;-)

I did look at this not long ago but I abandoned my attempt to port
3.14 PATCHes to 3.15 for this very reason.  It just seemed harder than
it should be.

--
Chris M. Moore
Software engineer
speaking for myself

Re: GNAT for Debian

[George Shapovalov]

Chris M. Moore wrote:
> It seems cleaner, less work and more maintainable to build gnat as

Well, this seems all nice and sound, but there are such things as FHS and
LSB, and in this case GNAE, which pretty much define what goes where. Of
course when you build it on your own you are free to screw your system as
you wish ;) (even then FHS says you should put it under /usr/local).
However if we are talking about a package for a respectable distribution
(such as Gentoo or Debian ;)) placing this stuff under /opt is
inappropriate (this one is reserved for biary packages). Sometimes there is
really no easy way around and one is forced to bundle a package in a way it
is built, however even then it should go under /usr/lib/$PkgName and proper
symlinks should be created (and possibly docs moved to proper place.., well
may be there will be something else as well :)).
Randhol is definitely free to do as he wishes, however I would expect Debian
devs to take the position similar to what he demonstrated just now. And
finally, wouldn't you like to use a properly built and installed package
;)?


> I did look at this not long ago but I abandoned my attempt to port
> 3.14 PATCHes to 3.15 for this very reason.  It just seemed harder than
> it should be.

Feel free to look at the ebuilds we have for Gentoo here:
http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/dev-lang/gnat/
for the gnat package (an update to the already posted ebuild is coming soon)
and here:
http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/dev-ada/
for some apps that already made it in..

George

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Simon Wright]

George Shapovalov <georges@its.caltech.edu> writes:

> Chris M. Moore wrote:
> > It seems cleaner, less work and more maintainable to build gnat as
> 
> Well, this seems all nice and sound, but there are such things as FHS and
> LSB, and in this case GNAE, which pretty much define what goes where. Of
> course when you build it on your own you are free to screw your system as
> you wish ;) (even then FHS says you should put it under /usr/local).
> However if we are talking about a package for a respectable distribution
> (such as Gentoo or Debian ;)) placing this stuff under /opt is
> inappropriate (this one is reserved for biary packages). Sometimes there is
> really no easy way around and one is forced to bundle a package in a way it
> is built, however even then it should go under /usr/lib/$PkgName and proper
> symlinks should be created (and possibly docs moved to proper place.., well
> may be there will be something else as well :)).
> Randhol is definitely free to do as he wishes, however I would expect Debian
> devs to take the position similar to what he demonstrated just now. And
> finally, wouldn't you like to use a properly built and installed package
> ;)?

It used to be most inadvisable to let GNAT installations anywhere near
your standard path (if you wanted to be able to rebuild your kernel,
for example). Not good if gcc turns out to be 2.8.1!

So you clearly need something like gnatgcc.

But you must be very careful where the gcc-lib/i686-whatever-linux
stuff goes -- not on top of your working standard compiler.

So you need a clean way of putting the GNAT builds (especially if you
have more than one) in places where they can't be mistaken and will
never end up on your path.

I choose /opt because if didn't seem like a bad idea; if it was, I am
very sorry. /usr/lib/gnat-3.15p (for example) would be a perfectly
good place, or /usr/local/gnat-3.15p.

You could easily then install gnatgcc and friends by symlinks in
/usr/local/bin (say).

The point of my gnatfe is to do effectively just that but in a way
that you can alter the compiler actually used by changing an
environment variable, which is effectively the prefix you built the
compiler with.

From my point of view, it means that I get the standard source tree,
apply the standard patches, configure --prefix=/opt/3.15p (say), build
& install.

I quite realize that if you're building a package for people to
install & use on the other side of the world without handholding,
things may look different!

Re: GNAT for Debian

[George Shapovalov]

Hi Simon.

Thanks for the insights!
(It is a coincidense, but I was just reading through your page on BC
components :). I am quite new to Ada, but I really liked it this second
time when I decided to take seriously at it. Let me thank you for a nice
work!)

Simon Wright wrote:
> George Shapovalov <georges@its.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Chris M. Moore wrote:
> It used to be most inadvisable to let GNAT installations anywhere near
> your standard path (if you wanted to be able to rebuild your kernel,
> for example). Not good if gcc turns out to be 2.8.1!
> 
> So you clearly need something like gnatgcc.
> 
> But you must be very careful where the gcc-lib/i686-whatever-linux
> stuff goes -- not on top of your working standard compiler.
Yes, these are all very valid concerns. Fortunately, being a source based
distribution aimed at providing maximum possible versatility we already
faced a problem of making various versions of gcc coexist peacefully. This
forced us to do some path mangling in order to ensure that different gcc
versions do not overwrite each other and provide gcc-config utility for
users to switch the active compiler. Thus gnat peacefully enters into this
picture - users can have gnat* on their path and simultaneously have
gcc-3.x as their active compiler.

However since we are aiming at adding more ada compilers, namely cvs
snapshot of ACT tree and more may be coming, we will probably need a
similar system in place for ada compilers which will partially plug into
existing gcc versioning system we already have.


> I choose /opt because if didn't seem like a bad idea; if it was, I am
> very sorry. /usr/lib/gnat-3.15p (for example) would be a perfectly
> good place, or /usr/local/gnat-3.15p.
Well, having faced FHS on many occasions :), I would say that
/usr/lib/gnat/${PV} would probably be the most compliant place (however
configure script should default to /usr/local/lib/gnat/${PV}, since local
admins are supposed to put stuff under /usr/local. Package builders can
always supply --prefix to ./configure ). The /usr/local/lib/gnat-${PV} will
also do, however if you plan on keeping multiple versions installed it
looks cleaner to separate package name and version.


> The point of my gnatfe is to do effectively just that but in a way
> that you can alter the compiler actually used by changing an
> environment variable, which is effectively the prefix you built the
> compiler with.
> 
> From my point of view, it means that I get the standard source tree,
> apply the standard patches, configure --prefix=/opt/3.15p (say), build
> & install.
Sure, and your work is greatly appreciated!

You might also want to take a look at Gentoo build process: the package is
unpacked into a separate place (/var/tmp/portage/${pkgName-pkgVer} by
default) where all the necessary patches/sed's are applied, it is
configured and built (and installed after which it gets merged to a live
system). This is quite convenient for the developement and system
maintaince. Developer can have his isolation in a separate place, while
being able to link against live system (bundled libraries/components can
require additional flags, although most often things are split into
separate packages then). Packagers enjoy the same isolation which provides
an ability to layout package in a "right way" (TM), before actually merging
it onto a live tree.

Well, I gues my point was that you might even ease your life by having an
appropriate ebuild by your side ;). However since you need to package the
source for a wider audience I quite agree that your present approach is
simpler for a generic situation.
In any case, if you would have any questions or an idea on how we can help
each other, please do not hesitate to contact David, (who is becoming our
ada-related stuff maintainer) or me (I am overseing dev-lang in general
(mostly "alternative" stuff, i.e. no C/C++/Java :))).


> I quite realize that if you're building a package for people to
> install & use on the other side of the world without handholding,
> things may look different!
Yup, that's pretty much the idea :).

George

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Chris M. Moore wrote:
> It seems cleaner, less work and more maintainable to build gnat as
> intended and then to front-end the compiler than to PATCH the
> source/Makefiles to generate gnatgcc executables.  But if you want to
> do it the hard way then I won't refuse to use your package.  ;-)

No it is quite the opposite. It is harder to maintain this way. The
reason is that no Linux distribution is using the gcc 2.8.1 anymore so
every Linux distribution will have a gcc 2.95 or higher. It will always
be a mess if there are two gcc versions as most likely the wrong is
called. Besides the scripts need to be hacked so they work propperly for
the distributions. Finally installing outside /usr would never be accepted
behaviour of a package. It is not clean at all.

> I did look at this not long ago but I abandoned my attempt to port
> 3.14 PATCHes to 3.15 for this very reason.  It just seemed harder than
> it should be.

To changes calles to gcc to gnatgcc is not hard at all.

That all the names where changed to have a gnat prefix was a very good
idea. I have never had problems running the gnatmake on debian. And it
is the end user which is important. Not that the maintainer have to run
a sed script over the source. The only time I had problems were when I
tried the binaries from ACT which does not name gcc as gnatgcc and puts
the installation in a separate directory.

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Simon Wright wrote:
> But you must be very careful where the gcc-lib/i686-whatever-linux
> stuff goes -- not on top of your working standard compiler.

That is no problem:

/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1/
                            ^^^^^
                            gcc version

> So you need a clean way of putting the GNAT builds (especially if you
> have more than one) in places where they can't be mistaken and will
> never end up on your path.

You cannot have two gnat compilers at the same time. At least not as the
standard compiler. 

> I choose /opt because if didn't seem like a bad idea; if it was, I am
> very sorry. /usr/lib/gnat-3.15p (for example) would be a perfectly
> good place, or /usr/local/gnat-3.15p.
> 
> You could easily then install gnatgcc and friends by symlinks in
> /usr/local/bin (say).
> 
> The point of my gnatfe is to do effectively just that but in a way
> that you can alter the compiler actually used by changing an
> environment variable, which is effectively the prefix you built the
> compiler with.

Sure, but it makes it harder to maintain as a package I would say.

Normal practice if you need more than one gcc is that is is named:

gcc-2.95
gcc-3.2
gcc-3.3

etc... and gcc symlinks to the standard. Of course one could do that
too, but then one might get problems with gnatmake calling wrong gnatgcc
because of bad symlinks. 

> I quite realize that if you're building a package for people to
> install & use on the other side of the world without handholding,
> things may look different!

Exactly

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Folks,

I am happy to announce that I have completed the packaging of GNAT
3.15p for Debian.  I have made one big change relative to the GNAT
3.14p package: now, the package "gnat" does not conflict with, but
instead uses, "libgnat-3.15p-1".  libgnat-3.15p-1 contains the
stripped shared libraries only.  gnat contains the static libraries
with debugging information (-g -O2) in
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1/adalib.

The good things:

- I've just used aptitude on my local system to upgrade GNAT 3.14p
  successfully (i.e. the packages install cleanly).

- libgnat-3.14p-1 is still installed; it does not conflict with
  libgnat-3.15p-1 (the reason why it got installed is because I still
  have gnade-dev, which depends on it, installed).

- I've used it to compile all of the examples that come with GNAT's
  source distribution, and the examples run properly (the examples are
  in /usr/share/doc/gnat/examples, as you'd expect).

- All of the examples are dynamically linked against
  /usr/lib/libgnat-3.15p.so.1.1; so are the tools: gnat, gnatmake,
  gnatchop, gnatkr, etc.

- I still have gcc-3.3 installed; no conflicts.  However, for safety,
  I've made it so that gnat conflicts with gnat-3.3. (note that
  gnat-3.3 does not provide shared libraries, see bug #191997, 201882;
  so my package is actually better!).

- The compiler driver is "gnatgcc" not "gcc".  I've applied Samuel's
  patch to all of the tools so they understand this.

The bad things about the package:

- Symbolic tracebacks are not available, because this would require a
  patched version of binutils 2.9.1 (Debian bug #70501).

- gnatmem is not available for the same reason; it needs libaddr2line,
  too.

- Although I have applied Sam's patches for GNU/Linux on SPARC and
  PowerPC, I cannot try to build the package on these architectures.

- I have based the packages on sarge, not woody, because that's what I
  use; the automated build scripts have introduced a dependency on
  libc6 (>= 2.3.1-1).

I would like to know if someone has an upload area, preferably one
listed on http://www.apt-get.org, where I could upload the packages.

Alternatively, I could also send the diff.gz (12 Kb) to interested
people so they can try and build the package from sources too.  You'd
need knowledge about how to compile Debian packages.

My next step is to become an official Debian developer.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> Simon Wright wrote:
> > But you must be very careful where the gcc-lib/i686-whatever-linux
> > stuff goes -- not on top of your working standard compiler.
> 
> That is no problem:
> 
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1/
>                             ^^^^^
>                             gcc version

Yes, and since the dawn of time you can pass -b target -V version to
gcc, the compiler driver.  -b allows you to switch from "i486-linux"
to something else, and -V changes "2.8.1" into what you specify.  And
with a proper spec file, you can instruct gcc to handle Ada source
files (the spec file contains the defaults for -b and -V, and maps
source file name patterns with the various back-ends).

But passing -b and -V to the compiler is often difficult and confusing
in the context of recursive makefiles; hence gnatgcc.

> > So you need a clean way of putting the GNAT builds (especially if you
> > have more than one) in places where they can't be mistaken and will
> > never end up on your path.
> 
> You cannot have two gnat compilers at the same time. At least not as the
> standard compiler. 
> 
> > I choose /opt because if didn't seem like a bad idea; if it was, I am
> > very sorry. /usr/lib/gnat-3.15p (for example) would be a perfectly
> > good place, or /usr/local/gnat-3.15p.
> > 
> > You could easily then install gnatgcc and friends by symlinks in
> > /usr/local/bin (say).
> > 
> > The point of my gnatfe is to do effectively just that but in a way
> > that you can alter the compiler actually used by changing an
> > environment variable, which is effectively the prefix you built the
> > compiler with.

I think you made the right choice.  I, too, have a strict policy of
installing everything in /opt unless it is packaged for my
distribution (used to be Red Hat, now Debian).  I did install gnat
3.15p into /opt/gnat-3.15p and have a symlink /opt/gnat to point to
it; but instead of using wrapper scripts, I prefer to place
/opt/gnat/bin at the head of my PATH, and /opt/gnat/lib in
LD_LIBRARY_PATH, on a per-user basis or in /etc/profile.d.  This way,
the /usr partition never contains files that are not part of any
package.
 
> Sure, but it makes it harder to maintain as a package I would say.
> 
> Normal practice if you need more than one gcc is that is is named:
> 
> gcc-2.95
> gcc-3.2
> gcc-3.3
> 
> etc... and gcc symlinks to the standard. Of course one could do that
> too, but then one might get problems with gnatmake calling wrong gnatgcc
> because of bad symlinks. 

Yes.  On Debian, the package "gcc" creates the symlink.  In woody,
"gcc" is 2.95, but in sarge, "gcc" depends on "gcc-3.3" and points to
it.

> > I quite realize that if you're building a package for people to
> > install & use on the other side of the world without handholding,
> > things may look different!
> 
> Exactly

Aye.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> - I have based the packages on sarge, not woody, because that's what I
>   use; the automated build scripts have introduced a dependency on
>   libc6 (>= 2.3.1-1).

But one could recompile the package so it didn't need to I guess.
Doesn't matter if gnatmem isn't there I don't think it worked in 3.14p
either (?)

> I would like to know if someone has an upload area, preferably one
> listed on http://www.apt-get.org, where I could upload the packages.
> 
> Alternatively, I could also send the diff.gz (12 Kb) to interested
> people so they can try and build the package from sources too.  You'd
> need knowledge about how to compile Debian packages.

If you could send me that and the deb packages it would be great! I'll
try them out here.

> My next step is to become an official Debian developer.

Yes please do!

Now what we can do is making the following packages for 3.15p:

   Gtkada_2.2.0
   Asis            (note no asis in gcc 3.x)
   libasasocket
   gnade
   gnathtml
   gvd
   gps (??? don't remember if one can use 3.15p for this)
   aws

etc...

Great work!

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> I would like to know if someone has an upload area, preferably one
> listed on http://www.apt-get.org, where I could upload the packages.

What about www.gnuada.org, adapower, savannah or sourceforge?

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
>    libasasocket

     libadasocket

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Jérôme Marant]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbhsn6g.hr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> >>>>>> "Francisco" == Francisco Javier Loma Daza <fjloma@andaluciajunta.es> writes:
> > 
> >Francisco> P.D: Thanks to Samuel for his work with gnat for Debian
> > 
> > Note that I don't participate to Debian anymore (which explains why
> > packages were never updated to GNAT 3.15p).
> 
> How hard is it to make a Gnat 3.15p package? Could one use the Gnat
> 3.14p as a base ?

Florian Weimer has already done the job. You can ask him for the URL.

The only work that need to be done is to manage a transition, which
means rebuilding every package against the new GNAT 3.15p, and uploading
them all. This requires time and manpower.

I think the Sparc port needs some work as well.

Cheers,

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

jmarant@free.fr (Jérôme Marant) writes:

[packaging GNAT 3.15p on Debian]

> Florian Weimer has already done the job. You can ask him for the URL.

Is this true? Are you sure you're not alluding to gnat-3.3, which is
the branch of GNAT merged into GCC 3.3 and is less stable and reliable
than GNAT 3.15p?

Also, I remind you that gnat-3.3 does not come with shared libraries,
whereas both 3.14p and 3.15p do.

> The only work that need to be done is to manage a transition, which
> means rebuilding every package against the new GNAT 3.15p, and uploading
> them all. This requires time and manpower.

Agreed.  In fact, given the fact that we've got two Ada compilers (GCC
3.3 and GNAT 3.15p), there is a choice to be made.  Because the
general consensus seems to be that 3.15p is better than 3.3, I suppose
the transition will be to 3.15p.

In my packaging, I've made sure that libgnat-3.14p-1 and
libgnat-3.15p-1 can be installed on the same system.  This way,
binaries compiled with 3.14p can still run when 3.15p is installed; no
recompilation is necessary.

While I tested the installation, "apt-get install gnat=3.15p-1" did
the following:

- uninstall gnat 3.14p-1
- install libgnat-3.14p-1 3.14p-2 (because e.g. gnade-dev needs it)
- install libgnat-3.15p-1 3.15p-1 (because gnat 3.15p-1 needs it)
- install gnat 3.15p-1

> I think the Sparc port needs some work as well.

Yes, and interest.  I'm willing to send the URL to my GNAT 3.15p
package to whomever wants to try it on Sparc.

Same goes for the PowerPC port.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> writes:

Ludovic> I am happy to announce that I have completed the packaging of
Ludovic> GNAT 3.15p for Debian.  I have made one big change relative
Ludovic> to the GNAT 3.14p package: now, the package "gnat" does not
Ludovic> conflict with, but instead uses, "libgnat-3.15p-1".
Ludovic> libgnat-3.15p-1 contains the stripped shared libraries only.
Ludovic> gnat contains the static libraries with debugging information
Ludovic> (-g -O2) in /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1/adalib.

The reason why "gnat" conflicted with "libgnat-3.15p-1" was that the
former provided the shared library with debugging symbols, while the
latter provided it without them.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote in message news:m3el0f3y7e.fsf@insalien.org...
>
> Folks,
>
> I am happy to announce that I have completed the packaging of GNAT
> 3.15p for Debian.  I have made one big change relative to the GNAT
> 3.14p package: now, the package "gnat" does not conflict with, but
> instead uses, "libgnat-3.15p-1".  libgnat-3.15p-1 contains the
> stripped shared libraries only.  gnat contains the static libraries
> with debugging information (-g -O2) in
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.8.1/adalib.

Have you tested GLADE with this new release? I would need GNAT's GLADE
support on Debian, before I upgraded.

TIA, Warren.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Warren" == Warren W Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes:

Warren> Have you tested GLADE with this new release? I would need
Warren> GNAT's GLADE support on Debian, before I upgraded.

GLADE will run without modification, you can compile it yourself even
if it is not packaged.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes:

> The reason why "gnat" conflicted with "libgnat-3.15p-1" was that the
> former provided the shared library with debugging symbols, while the
> latter provided it without them.

Thanks for the info.  I've been thinking some more about this.  Is it
really desirable to provide a shared library with debugging support?
The reason I'm wondering is Debian bug #58329: gnat library compiled
with bad path to sources.

I don't know if this problem also applies to the static library.  Do
you have any more insight?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT for Debian

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> writes:

Ludovic> Thanks for the info.  I've been thinking some more about
Ludovic> this.  Is it really desirable to provide a shared library
Ludovic> with debugging support?  The reason I'm wondering is Debian
Ludovic> bug #58329: gnat library compiled with bad path to sources.

The advantage was clearly not to have to relink your application
between development and production: you could test your application
with the "gnat" package installed, and distribute it as-is. Your
application was dynamically linked, and the receiver could run it with
the sole libgnat-... package installed.

But this is not mandatory at all.

Ludovic> I don't know if this problem also applies to the static
Ludovic> library.

Yup, it did.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam