Talk:Ada Programming/Installing

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)


 * The link was updated, but the current one is also dead. Should we remove the entire GNAT 3.15p section? I think it's now only useful for historians. FSF GNAT is the natural successor. ManuelGR (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

AIDE web site

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, 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)

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)

Removal of section
I'd like to remove Section 4.7.8 (GNAT for Macintosh ...) because (a) it isn't part of a larger distribution, and (b) the MacAda site referenced isn't up to date.

More recent GNAT versions for more recent Mac OS X versions can be had from the Sourceforge GNU Ada site referenced in Section 4.3. I've asked the Mac OS X mailing list for comments ... Sjw (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, feel free to do it. The referenced page is no longer existent, so it should be done. This page is so detailed now, that it requires constant updating. ManuelGR (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)