I confess to having made an omission when drawing up the gcc-3.2 transition plan. I concentrated on C++ and completely ignored other languages. I do not know what (if anything) nees to be done for Java or Fortran. However, I've done a small amount of investigation on what needs to be done for Ada. Comments and corrections welcomed.
First, what packages are affected? On my i386-unstable box, only the following packages depend on either gnat or libgnat-3.14p-1 adacgi asis-programs gch gnade-dev gnat-glade libadasockets0-dev libasis-3.14p-1 libgtkada1-dev topal (why don't libadaodbc1 or libadasockets0 show up on this? are there other Ada packages we're missing from this list?) Source packages: adacgi adasockets asis gch gnade gnat-glade libgtkada topal So we're not dealing with nearly as large a problem as C++. First problem: arch list. gnat-3.2 is available on everything except arm & m68k. Rumour has it gnat-3.3 will be available on m68k too. So I propose arch: any for these packages and they will simply fail on arm & m68k for the moment. This seems more sensible than asking package maintainers to track which architectures have managed to get gnat working. Second problem: dependencies in the debian/control file. They probably look something like this: Build-Depends: gnat (>= 3.14p-1), gnat (<< 3.15) and Depends: gnat (>= 3.14p-1), gnat (<< 3.15) What should these look like? I'm tempted to say: Build-Depends: gnat and Depends: ${shlibs:Depends} For this to work, I think we need a libgnat3.15a.shlibs file. Also, gnat is a virtual package provided by gnat-3.2, which the autobuilders aren't going to like. Anything further needs to be done? -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk