Ada Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1

[Khairi Jansar]

________________________________
 From: "ada-request at lists.fedoraproject.org" <ada-request at lists.fedoraproject.org>
To: ada at lists.fedoraproject.org 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:00 PM
Subject: Ada Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
 
Send Ada mailing list submissions to
    ada at lists.fedoraproject.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ada
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    ada-request at lists.fedoraproject.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    ada-owner at lists.fedoraproject.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ada digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Removing a dependency (Björn Persson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:02:21 +0200
From: Björn Persson <bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>
To: ada at lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Removing a dependency
Message-ID: <2081807.VdFnbh0j1L at hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The fedora-gnat-project-common package has so far required gcc-gnat. I'm 
considering removing this dependency. My arguments are as follows:

· The dependency seemed to make sense initially, because directories.gpr 
would be of no use without Gnatmake. This is no longer true now that 
GPRbuild is in Fedora. Gnat project files can now be processed by either 
Gnatmake or GPRbuild.

· GPRbuild can be used for other languages than Ada. It should be 
possible to compile a program written entirely in C, C++, Fortran or 
some other language. Gnat would not be needed in such a case, but 
directories.gpr and the RPM macros in macros.gnat would be useful, so it 
makes sense to be able to install fedora-gnat-project-common without 
pulling in gcc-gnat.

· The only argument I have for keeping the dependency is convenience. In 
the typical case the dependency allows packagers to write 
"BuildRequires: fedora-gnat-project-common" instead of "BuildRequires: 
fedora-gnat-project-common gcc-gnat". I think technical accuracy is more 
important than convenience in this case. A package that requires Gnat to 
build shall say so in the spec file. By the way there are greater 
convenience gains to be made by other means, such as spec file templates.

Opinions on this before I make the change in Rawhide?

Björn



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Fedora Ada mailing list
Ada at lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ada


End of Ada Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
*********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ada/attachments/20121102/d31fc7c6/attachment.html>