Dan Horák wrote: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:32:44 +0100 > Björn Persson <Bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:46:26 +0100 > > > Björn Persson <Bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > GPRbuild is > > > > linked to XMLada, and both GPRbuild and XMLada are linked to > > > > libgnat, as are all other Ada programs and libraries. > > > > > > > > With every major GCC upgrade the soname of libgnat changes, and > > > > all the Ada packages stop working until they get rebuilt. But > > > > rebuilding requires a working GPRbuild. > > > > > > > > Previously a catch-22 was avoided because XMLada and GPRbuild > > > > were built with Gnatmake, which is built as a part of GCC. Now > > > > they're both built with GPRbuild instead, and Gnatmake is > > > > emitting warnings that it's going to lose support for the > > > > project files that control the build. The next GCC upgrade will > > > > make the problem acute. > > > > > > How are others supposed to handle this? > > > > Other users of the GNAT toolchain? Well, if they don't use Koji then > > maybe Kevin meant other distros - Debian, OpenSUSE - they all use a > buildsystem OK, if I read the question as "How does Adacore expect Free Software distributions to handle this?", then the answer is that I think they don't care much. Adacore's paying customers are big corporations and institutions. Those generally handle tools and libraries in the form of relocatable packages that they unpack in some directory in their networked filesystem. They can have multiple versions of each package available, and manipulate environment variables to point to the one they want to run or link to. That's the use case that Adacore care about. Adacore do set their software free, but if you don't pay for a support contract then you pretty much have to take it or leave it. They may accept patches, but only if the proposed changes don't inconvenience them too much. If they have decided that maintaining duplicated code for project file support in both Gnatmake and GPRbuild is too much trouble, then they won't change their minds just to make things easier for Free Software distributions. If I would complain, then they would probably say that they'll ensure that each version of GPRbuild can be built by the previous version, and if Fedora's build system can't handle that, then that's Fedora's problem. And they would be right. Björn Persson
Attachment:
pgpjqETfilNg0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
