Talk:Ada Programming/Installing
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Broken Links
These links are broken:
Linux http://libre.adacore.com/GNAT/3.15p/gnat-3.15p-i686-pc-redhat71-gnu-bin.tar.gz http://libre.adacore.com/GNAT/3.15p/florist-3.15p-src.tgz http://libre.adacore.com/GNAT/3.15p/asis/asis-3.15p-src.tgz
Windows http://libre.adacore.com/GNAT/3.15p/winnt/gnat-3.15p-nt.exe http://libre.adacore.com/GNAT/3.15p/winnt/gnatwin-3.15p.exe http://libre.adacore.com/GNAT/3.15p/asis/asis-3.15p-src.tgz --kwhitefoot 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AIDE (for Microsoft Windows)
AIDE is intented to education and development. It is usuable by several differents programmers since references and environment are saved in seperate directories.
AIDE comes with three differents development environments : a general purpose IDE Emacs based (Glide), a Ada oriented graphic IDE (GPS) or even a console (MSys, Bash compatible).
AIDE also comes with a multilingual Texinfo based documentation toolchain able to generate help files (HTML) and user's manual (PDF) from a single source file.
AIDE is unique by its licence, its integration and its seamless system integration :
* All the tools needed are free, integrated and already configured ; * AIDE is immediately useable after installation ; * No file in any system directory ; * No environment variables created or modified outside AIDE.
The main components used are :
* GNAT 3.15p, GtkAda 2.2.0, GPS 2.1.0, mSys 1.0.8 ; * upx 1.22, ucl 1.01 ; * gs 7.05, a2ps 4.13, psutils 1.17, file 4.03.
[edit] Who is the "we" in...
For technical reasons, we recommend against using the Ada compilers included in GCC 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4.0. Instead, we recommend using GCC 3.4, 4.1 or 4.2, or one of the releases from AdaCore (3.15p, GPL Edition or Pro).
...
Who is the "we" issuing this recommendation? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bfisk (talk • contribs) .
- I suppose "we" stands for "we, the authors". In fact this paragraph was written by an anonymous user [1], but I think that he was User:Ludovic Brenta, maintainer of the GNAT package in Debian, who forgot to login. Do you disagree with the statement? ManuelGR (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Debian is not a binary distribution [ UPDATED ]
The last time I checked, Debian is not a binary distribution.
Debian has always been a source-based distribution where you boot into a mininimal environment that then compiles the software as it is installed on your computer.
The section under Debian [Section 16] has a statement: "Because Debian is a binary distribution, ...".
This should be clarified. Unless it's been so long that I've missed the changes ( various *buntu's notwithstanding - they're Debian-based, but NOT Debian).
- Debian has been always a binary distribution. Indeed, it supports a wide range of architectures (http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/). You can trust the accuracy of the Debian section, since it has been written mostly by Ludovic Brenta, the official Debian maintainer of the Ada related packages. ManuelGR (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- No argument on the architecture list (insert appropriate smiley here). In the 10+ years I've been playing with Linux (since Slackware first replaced SLS), I recall that Debian (true Debian, not a distribution based on Debian) started as a source-based distribution where the installation process first [ downloaded | copied from CD to hard disk ] the source for the package, then compiled it for the appropriate target machine to make use of hardware capabilities, then installed the package. This was also one of the reasons that people had more installation pains than even Slackware due to the compile cycle (slower computers then). I would be interested in finding out either A) when Debian went binary distribution model, or B) what major (not based-on) distribution I'm thinking of that was source-based only initial install.
-
- [ UPDATE ] My mistake - it appears I was thinking of Gentoo Linux. My bag. --Ken Roberts (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
