1 |
Wow, thanks Dirk for bringing this up, but no thatnks for rushing - I haven't |
2 |
got my prototype ebuilds and eclass workign yet :). Well, I did somewhat, but |
3 |
not to the point where it would really, um, work.. |
4 |
|
5 |
Anyway, since this was brought up, I think I would do that -dev posting, to |
6 |
announce proposed changes and clarify the issue. |
7 |
|
8 |
See, not only gcc is a mess, the situation with gnat, while technically |
9 |
somewhat more "stable", is messier "organizationally". In short, there are |
10 |
two communities now that develop ada (gcc-related) and three relevant |
11 |
compilers. |
12 |
|
13 |
First (organization) is Ada Core - they do the development and most new |
14 |
features, they are involved with the Ada standard (Ada 200x - the standard, |
15 |
is almost out BTW and most of the new features are already "done") and also |
16 |
they do commercial support. They are a commercial company, a lot tike |
17 |
Trolltech, with a slightly different licensing model from what I can tell. |
18 |
They issue two compilers: |
19 |
gnatpro - a commercial "alternative" which you can use to sell software or do |
20 |
non-OS/academia development |
21 |
and |
22 |
gnatgpl - essentially the same, but all GPL and released with some delay. And |
23 |
no support, except by public forums/lists of course.. |
24 |
|
25 |
Now, these two are supposed to share 99% of the code, so, theoretically, one |
26 |
package could deal with both. Unfortunately looks like that 1% difference is |
27 |
in legal land and not just some license bundled with the rest of it. The |
28 |
license clause is in the code and in pretty much every distributed spec file |
29 |
(analog of headers for C[++] distributed with compiler, for the rts system, |
30 |
etc.). So I am not sure we can simply use one ebuild with LICENSE="blah | |
31 |
blah". Although gnatgpl-2005 is not out yet, so we'll have to see it for |
32 |
real, when it is released. |
33 |
|
34 |
Now, nice folks at gcc have picked it up recently as well (and they seem to be |
35 |
consistently active nowadays). They are mostly making it play nicely with the |
36 |
mainstream gcc (Ada Core's stuff is built vs fixed gcc version, quite far |
37 |
behind normally) and porting to other arches. This one is different enough |
38 |
technically to warrant separate ebuild, plus trying to stick all three |
39 |
together would make versioning insane (it is almost that now with a single |
40 |
gnat package (and gnatpro-3.15, gnatgcc-3.4x in..) and I don't want to think |
41 |
how we would agg the Ada Core's 2005 stuff in). |
42 |
|
43 |
Keep in mind, I am not closely involved in either of these communities, so if |
44 |
somebody has any clarifications to these clarifications, just shoot them :). |
45 |
|
46 |
So, the idea was to split gnat into three packages (gnatpro although would |
47 |
have to wait untill we sort it all out, make gnatgpl work and contact Ada |
48 |
Core..) plus an eclass "tu rule them all". In addition to following the logic |
49 |
of upstream this will give you the ability to install them in parallel, plus |
50 |
they will be SLOTted, to allow verrsions based on different backends to |
51 |
coexist.. |
52 |
Looks like that will have to be done via an extra eclass - gnatbuild, in |
53 |
addition to the gnat.eclass we have now. The gnatbuild will keep common |
54 |
functionality for building all the gnats and gnat.eclass is necessary for |
55 |
building ada packages (there is some shared code for them, mostly filtering |
56 |
flags and setting env). Plus the eselect module, to set the active compiler. |
57 |
|
58 |
Now, back to the topic at hand. |
59 |
gnatgcc (the proposed name for the compiler that's in gcc, maintained by FSF) |
60 |
*may be* joined with the rest of gcc, starting with gcc-4.0 or gcc-4.1 for |
61 |
example. It also *may be* kept separate. I would really like here to hear |
62 |
some opinions, as I heard users requesting it both ways.. Does anybody know |
63 |
if there is there is some "generic" Ada users hangout as well? I think it |
64 |
would be usefull to post something similar there, when I make it all work.. |
65 |
|
66 |
For more details please refer to #111340 and #64373. |
67 |
|
68 |
Last, but not least: we need a long-term maintainer of ada stuff to help me |
69 |
and David Holm. I am really sidetracking now from the rest of Scientific |
70 |
Gentoo and Ezotheric Gentoo stuff that I do, so I would like to hand this |
71 |
over to somebody when I finish with this reorganization and make it work.. |
72 |
So, if there is anybody motivated enough to look over Ada in Gentoo, please |
73 |
follow the normal routine: |
74 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=1&chap=2 |
75 |
email recruiters, CC me or ada herd.. |
76 |
(Above that was apparently a call to users, if there is an interesetd in Ada |
77 |
dev, so much the better :)). |
78 |
|
79 |
George |
80 |
|
81 |
середа, 4. січень 2006 08:47, Dirk Heinrichs Ви написали: |
82 |
> Hi, |
83 |
> |
84 |
> there has been a lengthy discussion on bugzilla ([1]), about the best |
85 |
> packaging method for the gnat Ada compiler. The outcome seems to be that |
86 |
> gnat will still have its own ebuild in the future and not be part of the |
87 |
> GCC ebuild. It also has a mention that gcj will eventually be split out |
88 |
> from the GCC ebuild in the future. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> So my question is: Would it be a good idea to generally turn GCC into split |
91 |
> ebuilds (like KDE/X.org)? Pros/Cons? |
92 |
> |
93 |
> Bye... |
94 |
|
95 |
-- |
96 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |