This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem

<The references are such as "For information on GLADE, contact Ada Core
Technologies.".  That's commercial advertising.  A GNU manual should say
something more like "GLADE is free software, available from @uref{.....}."
(presuming this to be true).  Similarly, where the manual says "Ada Core
Technologies does not currently supply such a tool", the question of
whether ACT supplies such a tool is irrelevant to a GNU manual; the manual
should indicate whether such a tool is known to be available as free
software, and from where if so.

Well the word contact does not appear in the current manuals, so I am not
sure where this quote comes from, perhaps from some previous versions
that are now obsolete. I think the best thing is to wait till we can
get proper versions of the current manuals updated, then we can discuss
any remaining references that seem problematical.

<<I don't object to the current lists of primary and secondary evaluation
platforms, but I also don't think it would any longer be unreasonable if
only free platforms were listed as primary platforms in release criteria
and non-free platforms were only secondary.  Certainly that would seem to
be in the spirit of the instructions to GNU maintainers, placing GNU and
GNU/Linux in importance above other platforms.  (Though in such a case,
for variety, there would at least need to be GNU Hurd, GNU/Linux and BSD
systems included in the primary platforms.)

Well obviously this does not affect ACT one way or another. Personally
I have no strong feelings either way. 

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]