On 6/04, Matthias Klose wrote:
| Ada:
|
| - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all?
Sure.
| - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or
| should it be gnat-3.1?
Mmm, at least until we are sure that this version of GNAT is as stable as
the previous one,
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 20:17, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
| - More architectures: Chris wrote, he wanted to build for alpha.
| Anyone else for other architectures?
Cross compilation needed, not difficult, only tedious.
Is there a recipe somewhere for bringing up GNAT using a cross compiler?
I'm
Samuel Tardieu writes:
| - should we build gnat from the gcc-3.1 source at all?
Sure.
Then I add you to the maintainers list and you subscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| - package names: I choose gnat-3.15 and libgnat3.15a. Is this ok, or
| should it be gnat-3.1?
Mmm, at least until we
On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
What about woody? s390 wants to have it for woody, correct?
Yes, that would be great, but probably unrealistic. I am currently adapting
the java patch for s390, since it's still not upstream available and your
package doesn't work
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: New gcc-3.1 packages (including gnat)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:26:05 +0200
From: Gerhard Tonn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Philip Blundell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:21, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 20:17
On 6/04, Matthias Klose wrote:
| Then I add you to the maintainers list and you subscribe to
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's do that when I become available again (in 7 weeks).
| Or gcc-gnat-3.1? If everything gets OK, no
| problem for moving to your package.
|
| Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or
Then again, why not gnat-3.15? Or gnat-3.1?
According to www.gnat.com, ACT are currently shipping GNATpro 3.15.
This is surely a different version to what will ship with gcc 3.1 (in
fact, I think it's still based on gcc 2.8), so I think gnat-3.15 would
be confusing.
-M-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
* Gerhard Tonn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Saturday 06 April 2002 21:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
One showstopper for 3.1 on s390 in Debian is currently the binutils version
as I figured out recently. Every binutils version greater than 2.11.92.0.12.3
used together with 3.1 produces broken
8 matches
Mail list logo
