Re: Some important packages have been orphaned
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 08:19:56PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > Do you mean the compiler code?
> The source code which is actually i386 assembler (at least on my
> See /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.1.1/adainclude/a-numaux.adb.
> However, I don't quite understand this code; if I take it and put it
> on my program, it never works, not even on gnat 3.14. I suspect
> that is my fault though.
I'm sorry, I currently don't have a web access. I'll have a look later.
> > > (I am still a bit confused which version I should be trying to get
> > > fixed).
> > Well, gnat-3.1 has still not passed the ACATS tests. gnat 3.14p has.
> > But, I think that everything should be done to improve gnat-3.1
> > from now on. ACT said gnat-3.1 should be better than 3.14p.
One more details: 3.14p remains the official public release as long
as gnat-3.1 (and greater) has not passed ACATS tests. It must be
supported in debian because a lot of users may not want to switch
to 3.1 yet.
> > > Actually I used the BTS system for reporting gcc bugs. See bugs 6910 and
> > > 6911 or Debian Bugs 147145 and 148529 (respectively). The gcc BTS bugs
> > > <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl> are linked with the Debian
> > > BTS bug entries.
> > I've seen them all. I would expect ACT to speak up but what they plan
> > is still quite unclear. 3.1 is work in progress, I hope 3.2 will
> > be better.
> > Did you try to compile with the CVS version from HEAD?
> No, I haven't. I will have to try...
> Can you run it from the source tree, or does it need to be installed?
I think you have to install it because of paths, but I'm not sure.
> > > I haven't reported the bug specific to gnat 3.14p upstream though.
> > > Should I?
> > I think you should, yes.
> If development is now proceeding into 3.1, there may not be much point
If you can reproduce it with 3.1, yes.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org