Re: [gentoo-dev] Ada compiler: split complete, naming suggestions for gnat-gpl?

[Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo)]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:44:41 +0100
George Shapovalov <george@g.o> wrote:

> 1. 2005 stands for the standard revision namme (as in Ada 2005)
> really rather than for a particular version.

To elaborate for those unfamiliar with Ada; this is the same sort of
thing as C89, C99.  Enforcing the previous 83 standard over the current
95 standard can be done by the switch -gnat83; I imagine the 2005
release will add a switch -gnat95.

> I see two alternatives here:
>
> 1. gnat-gpl-2005.1. This keeps it closer to upstream, makes it look
> like a more real version number and allows trivial increment if an
> update is released soon (the nearest one is likely to be 2006.1
> already although :))

If the 2005 is the standard version then they won't change it to 2006.
If they do change it to 2006, then the 2005 is the release date not a
reference to the standard - in which case it is the upstream release
number :)

> 2. gnat-gpl-3.4.5.1 This uses the backend gcc version as a base,
> adding a "gnat release indicator" to track gnat-gpl specific changes.
> Further from upstream naming but simplifies SLOT logic in eclass a
> lot (in the long run, no need to issue one more conditional for
> another new version).
>
> I am leaning more towards option one (gnat-gpl-2005.1), for
> "consistency with upstream" reason, as it will be (potentially) less
> confusing to the users. However I am interested in opinions..

If the 2005 does turn out to be a release date rather than the
standard name, then it makes sense as a release version; gnat-gpl-2005
would be enough.  Later releases can add a point revision if necessary;
if you do 2005.1 now, what happens if upstream release
gnat-gpl-2005.1.tgz?

Another possibility is gnat-gpl-3.4.5.2005, but I'm not sure that it's
worth it.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn


-- 
Kevin F. Quinn