Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <200010122240.QAA09837@wijiji.santafe.edu>you write:
  > I agree with your arguments that the Ada sources should be included in
  > the main GCC repository, and I would like to see this done soon.
Good.


  > But it is unreasonable to ask ACT to put its repository onto a machine
  > run by Cygnus, and associated by the public with Cygnus.  If we want
  > to say to ACT that using the GCC repository is the only right thing to
  > do, we need to move the GCC repository to a neutral GNU site first.
This is awful funny in a sick sort of way.

Red Hat (and formerly Cygnus) has bent over backwards to open up the GCC
development environment and try to put all developers on a level playing
field.    Yet, we have to do even more before you'll encourage a company
(ACT) that has de-facto stranglehold on GNU Ada development to open up
development of GNU Ada and put all developers on a level playing field.

Isn't that somewhat of a double standard?

Yes, the machine is physically at Red Hat's Sunnyvale site (Cygnus as a
corporate entity no longer exists), but everyone is encouraged to use
gcc.gnu.org and with a few exceptions gcc.gnu.org is logically out of
the redhat.com/cygnus.com domains.

Yes, there has been some content on sources.redhat.com which could be
mis-leading in terms of implying control over GCC, GDB or binutils.  But
as I've always maintained if there is something on that site that is 
objectionable and gives the wrong impression that we'll fix it.

jeff