GNAT packages in Linux distributions
in [ADA]
|
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 9 May 2010 13:40 For more than a year I has been using either GNAT Pro or GNAT GPL. Recently I installed Fedora and Debian GNAT distributions and discovered that basically all two years old bugs known to me are still present. Some of these bugs were fixed in GNAT GPL 2009, others in GNAT Pro 6.3. So my question is: is there any information or summary on the Web about how Linux distributions are related to AdaCore releases? Or maybe somebody knowledgeable could create and maintain this as a wiki etc. It is important with respect to submitting bug reports. I already did some to Debian. But then I started to discover more and more. Because the bugs I am talking about are known fixed, in my eyes, it does not make any sense to submit them again. (Provided, GNAT will not be developed independently on AdaCore, rather than merely packaged) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Ludovic Brenta on 9 May 2010 14:16 Dmitry A. Kazakov writes on comp.lang.ada: > For more than a year I has been using either GNAT Pro or GNAT > GPL. Recently I installed Fedora and Debian GNAT distributions and > discovered that basically all two years old bugs known to me are still > present. Some of these bugs were fixed in GNAT GPL 2009, others in > GNAT Pro 6.3. > > So my question is: is there any information or summary on the Web > about how Linux distributions are related to AdaCore releases? Or > maybe somebody knowledgeable could create and maintain this as a wiki > etc. http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html See section 2.3.4 FSF releases and (now outdated) Appendix B. You will see that the GCC 4.3 you are using is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL 2007; Debian testing has GCC 4.4 which is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL 2008. Note that I backport some bug fixes into the Debian version of GCC. > It is important with respect to submitting bug reports. I already did > some to Debian. But then I started to discover more and more. Because > the bugs I am talking about are known fixed, in my eyes, it does not > make any sense to submit them again. (Provided, GNAT will not be > developed independently on AdaCore, rather than merely packaged) "known fixed" to whom? The bug database at AdaCore is private (and with good reason). If you use the FSF version of GNAT, you should use the corresponding bug database: Debian, Fedora or GCC upstream. There are a few contributors external to AdaCore that provide bug fixes into the FSF GCC, sometimes ahead of AdaCore; I normally backport such fixes into the Debian version. Eventually, all bug fixes end up in both GNAT Pro/GPL and in FSF GCC. The keyword is "eventually"; the time lag can be months or years as you noted. -- Ludovic Brenta.
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 9 May 2010 15:36 On Sun, 09 May 2010 20:16:27 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov writes on comp.lang.ada: >> For more than a year I has been using either GNAT Pro or GNAT >> GPL. Recently I installed Fedora and Debian GNAT distributions and >> discovered that basically all two years old bugs known to me are still >> present. Some of these bugs were fixed in GNAT GPL 2009, others in >> GNAT Pro 6.3. >> >> So my question is: is there any information or summary on the Web >> about how Linux distributions are related to AdaCore releases? Or >> maybe somebody knowledgeable could create and maintain this as a wiki >> etc. > > http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html Thanks. I was aware of the document, but didn't read it thoroughly. > See section 2.3.4 FSF releases and (now outdated) Appendix B. You will > see that the GCC 4.3 you are using is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL > 2007; Debian testing has GCC 4.4 which is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL > 2008. I.e. 2010 - 2008 = 2 (Fedora - gprbuild, GPS, GNADE ODBC, APQ) 2010 - 2007 = 3 (Debian + gprbuild, GPS, GNADE ODBC, APQ) Right? > Note that I backport some bug fixes into the Debian version of > GCC. Do you have access to AdaCore wavefronts? >> It is important with respect to submitting bug reports. I already did >> some to Debian. But then I started to discover more and more. Because >> the bugs I am talking about are known fixed, in my eyes, it does not >> make any sense to submit them again. (Provided, GNAT will not be >> developed independently on AdaCore, rather than merely packaged) > > "known fixed" to whom? To me. Many I have already forgotten, it is two years since then... > The bug database at AdaCore is private (and with good reason). Whatever reasons might be, they aren't good. (:-() > If you > use the FSF version of GNAT, you should use the corresponding bug > database: Debian, Fedora or GCC upstream. Hmm, that would make sense only for bugs related to the compiler environment, packaging etc. If the bug is a compiler problem, there is no chance it can be fixed unless somebody is working on the compiler itself. For example, there is a bug in assignment of controlled objects. It crashes Debian, leaks in Fedora, fixed in GPL 2009. Should it be reported? Where to? > There are a few contributors external to AdaCore that provide bug fixes > into the FSF GCC, sometimes ahead of AdaCore; I normally backport such > fixes into the Debian version. Eventually, all bug fixes end up in both > GNAT Pro/GPL and in FSF GCC. The keyword is "eventually"; the time lag > can be months or years as you noted. So, when (if) GNAT GPL 2010 come, nothing will sufficiently change for FSF? That is very disappointing. I hoped to jump off the GPL track (not because of the license issue). -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Ludovic Brenta on 9 May 2010 17:26 Dmitry A. Kazakov writes: >> http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html > > Thanks. I was aware of the document, but didn't read it thoroughly. > >> See section 2.3.4 FSF releases and (now outdated) Appendix B. You will >> see that the GCC 4.3 you are using is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL >> 2007; Debian testing has GCC 4.4 which is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL >> 2008. > > I.e. > > 2010 - 2008 = 2 (Fedora - gprbuild, GPS, GNADE ODBC, APQ) > 2010 - 2007 = 3 (Debian + gprbuild, GPS, GNADE ODBC, APQ) > > Right? Not entirely; you should qualify which version of Debian or Fedora you are talking about: 2010 - 2008 = 2 (Fedora ?? - gprbuild, GPS, GNADE ODBC, APQ) 2010 - 2007 = 3 (Debian 5.0 - gprbuild, + GPS, GNADE ODBC, - APQ) 2010 - 2008 = 2 (Debian 6.0 + gprbuild, GPS, GNADE ODBC, APQ) >> Note that I backport some bug fixes into the Debian version of >> GCC. > > Do you have access to AdaCore wavefronts? Not in my capacity as an unpaid, unsupported volunteer. > To me. Many I have already forgotten, it is two years since then... > >> The bug database at AdaCore is private (and with good reason). > > Whatever reasons might be, they aren't good. (:-() Oh no? What about top-secret Ada code from the military that triggers a bug in GNAT? >> If you use the FSF version of GNAT, you should use the corresponding >> bug database: Debian, Fedora or GCC upstream. > > Hmm, that would make sense only for bugs related to the compiler > environment, packaging etc. If the bug is a compiler problem, there is > no chance it can be fixed unless somebody is working on the compiler > itself. For example, there is a bug in assignment of controlled > objects. It crashes Debian, leaks in Fedora, fixed in GPL 2009. Should > it be reported? Where to? To those that you use actively. If you report it to Debian and I determine that the bug was not introduced by Debian, then I will forward it to the FSF. If you have a workaround, it is better to document it with the bug than let it remain unknown. The workaround may help other people avoid the bug and may also help people working on the compiler to fix the bug (if not already fixed). >> There are a few contributors external to AdaCore that provide bug >> fixes into the FSF GCC, sometimes ahead of AdaCore; I normally >> backport such fixes into the Debian version. Eventually, all bug >> fixes end up in both GNAT Pro/GPL and in FSF GCC. The keyword is >> "eventually"; the time lag can be months or years as you noted. > > So, when (if) GNAT GPL 2010 come, nothing will sufficiently change for > FSF? That is very disappointing. I hoped to jump off the GPL track > (not because of the license issue). FSF GCC 4.5.0 has just been released; this is roughly equivalent to GNAT GPL 2009. If you want the bleeding edge from the FSF, that's what you want. Unfortunately this is not packaged yet for Debian (and probably not for Fedora either, but I don't know). OTOH, if you can identify a patch in GCC 4.5.0 that fixes a bug (and does only that), then I'll be happy to backport it into Debian's GCC 4.4.4 for you. Browsing the changelog is, however, time-consuming. -- Ludovic Brenta.
From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) on 9 May 2010 17:28
Le Sun, 09 May 2010 21:36:58 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit: > Hmm, that would make sense only for bugs related to the compiler > environment, packaging etc. If the bug is a compiler problem, there is no > chance it can be fixed unless somebody is working on the compiler itself. > For example, there is a bug in assignment of controlled objects. It > crashes I was to report some bugs as well about GNAT (there was some about protected types, that's why your words make me though about it, however, there some others as well), and gave up to send bug reports when I've learned from people using the Pro version those bugs were already fixed for long. Yes, it seems obvious the differences between GNAT Pro and GNAT GPL are not only a matter of support (or lack of support) or of license (commercial application allowed vs disallowed) : it seems these are two different compilers. > So, when (if) GNAT GPL 2010 come, nothing will sufficiently change for > FSF? > That is very disappointing. I hoped to jump off the GPL track (not > because > of the license issue). That's why I like to hear Randy talking about its compiler and that's why I oftenly ask questions about this and that related to Ada compilers in the large. I would like to switch to another one... unfortunately, being jobless for too long, even something as cheap as Janus Ada Compiler is not accessible to me (and does not target BSD or UNIX-like too, that's another matter). I would not want to talk about things I'm not aware of, any way, what I am thinking about it (just personal beliefs) : obviously, an Ada compiler is lot of work, and anybody work better when receiving something in return which makes his/her life easier (what ever could say GPL advocates about it). I believe the GPL version is just far to be a priority for AdaCore (as long as I refer to some bugs I have talked about and for which I get an answer of the form âHey, this is fixed for long in GNAT Proâ). AdaCore (or its ancestor) was initially mandated (is that the good word ?) to create a GPL Ada 95 compiler based on the GCC compiler chain (this was part of the requirements), to help ensure some good place for the Ada technology, to promote the language and its philosophy. This contract was largely fulfilled by AdaCore or its ancestor and its obligations about it has ended. AdaCore has no obligations at all concerning Ada 2005 nor any future Ada 2015 (or 2012... I don't know). Please, note the above are personal beliefs. P.S. What you are pointing about is not Fedora or UNIX-like specific, this is the same with the Windows version, this is mostly specific to the GPL version. P.P.S. I wonder why, being an owner of a GNAT Pro license, you need the GPL version ? You will get just less with the GPL version. -- No-no, this isn't an oops ...or I hope (TM) - Don't blame me... I'm just not lucky |