| 1 |
Hi All. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
This is to inform interested parties that the split (gnat => gnatgcc, gnatgpl, |
| 4 |
gnatpro) that I was describing recently is now functional and I ma ready to |
| 5 |
commit the reorganized gnat (p-masked of course at this point). Please see |
| 6 |
#111340 for details: |
| 7 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111340 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
One issue I wanted to discuss is the naming for the gnat-gpl one. The upstream |
| 10 |
provides the source under the name of gnat-gpl-2005.tgz. However we have to |
| 11 |
repackage and mirror it ourselves anyway (this was in fact conclusion from my |
| 12 |
short discussion with upstream) - |
| 13 |
1. upstream has it off dynamic lick that asks to login first (but th package |
| 14 |
itself is GPL and they give explicit permission for all the |
| 15 |
repackaging/mirroring as well) |
| 16 |
2. The source, as provided, was missing two files, so is deficient in a |
| 17 |
sense.. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So, I have some freedom in making the name sane and src_unpack common to both |
| 20 |
gnatgcc and gnat-gpl. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Problems with the name as it is: gnat-gpl-2005: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
1. 2005 stands for the standard revision namme (as in Ada 2005) really rather |
| 25 |
than for a particular version. While AdaCore (the upstream) promised to |
| 26 |
change the name when they put out another snapshot I wouldn't hold my breath |
| 27 |
- with such a name it is easy to forget this even if you have good |
| 28 |
intentions.. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
2. It has a '-' before the number, thus technically making 2005 into a version |
| 31 |
number, which is a bad choice for a version number. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
3. It is inconsistent with gnatgcc naming (it is gnatgcc-3.4.5 atm), while it |
| 34 |
uses the same backend.. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
4. Moving 2005 into a name looks stupid as well - this is just one of the |
| 37 |
versions really, other packages went through more major changes while keeping |
| 38 |
the same name and only incrementing major number.. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I see two alternatives here: |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
1. gnat-gpl-2005.1. This keeps it closer to upstream, makes it look like a |
| 44 |
more real version number and allows trivial increment if an update is |
| 45 |
released soon (the nearest one is likely to be 2006.1 already although :)) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
2. gnat-gpl-3.4.5.1 This uses the backend gcc version as a base, adding a |
| 48 |
"gnat release indicator" to track gnat-gpl specific changes. Further from |
| 49 |
upstream naming but simplifies SLOT logic in eclass a lot (in the long run, |
| 50 |
no need to issue one more conditional for another new version). |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I am leaning more towards option one (gnat-gpl-2005.1), for "consistency with |
| 53 |
upstream" reason, as it will be (potentially) less confusing to the users. |
| 54 |
However I am interested in opinions.. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
gnatgcc gets renamed to gnat-gcc-3.4.5 for consistency (nothing is committed |
| 57 |
yet, this is why I am trying to polish the names *now*!). Alternatively |
| 58 |
gnat-gpl may loose a '-'. I do not have a clear preference on this one, so |
| 59 |
again, if you care about Ada, plese voice your opinion (either here or in the |
| 60 |
bug). |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
George |
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives