Ivan Levashew wrote:
> Ludovic Brenta =D0=C9=DB=C5=D4:
> > That's ugly. Look at how the Debian Policy for Ada solves the problem
> > of using multiple libraries in a single program:
> >
> > http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html
> I can't make my packages just for Debian, however I can ease life of
> Debian maintainers. And GNAE documentation was removed from website. I'm
> not sure if I can rely on it.
You can at least rely on the Debian policy for Ada. It is nice if you
make Debian maintainers' lives easier, provided there is a Debian
maintainer for your package :)
> Adaproject seems to be unmaintained.
What is adaproject?
> I wasn't able to install it with just ./configure-make-make install.
As you have probably guessed, I detest the autotools with a vengeance.
They are slow, brittle, cryptic, unmaintainable, subtly incompatible
with other versions of themselves, and they exist only to overcome the
deficiencies and lack of portability of C and C++. We use Ada. We
don't need no stupid autotools. In simple cases, one GNAT project file
is sufficient. Nowadays, with gprmake, they can even handle multi-
language projects, so even these are "simple cases". In complex cases,
a complementary Makefile can call gnatprep or pass variables to the
project file e.g. to adjust the contents of the Source_Dirs or package
Naming. It can also simply pass build options on the gnatmake or
gprmake command line if you need to override or complement the options
in package Compiler, Linker or Binder. And this is true on all
platforms, except perhaps the most exotic ones like the ones from
Redmond, which don't even have "make" by default.
> I had an impression that virtually nobody cares about Ada packages'
> usage on a non-standard platform like Mac OS X.
Mac OS X is much more standard than e.g. Microsoft Windows, and there
are people who care about it. They are on http://www.macada.org
--
Ludovic Brenta.
|
