On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:44:41 +0100 George Shapovalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. 2005 stands for the standard revision namme (as in Ada 2005) > really rather than for a particular version. To elaborate for those unfamiliar with Ada; this is the same sort of thing as C89, C99. Enforcing the previous 83 standard over the current 95 standard can be done by the switch -gnat83; I imagine the 2005 release will add a switch -gnat95. > I see two alternatives here: > > 1. gnat-gpl-2005.1. This keeps it closer to upstream, makes it look > like a more real version number and allows trivial increment if an > update is released soon (the nearest one is likely to be 2006.1 > already although :)) If the 2005 is the standard version then they won't change it to 2006. If they do change it to 2006, then the 2005 is the release date not a reference to the standard - in which case it is the upstream release number :) > 2. gnat-gpl-3.4.5.1 This uses the backend gcc version as a base, > adding a "gnat release indicator" to track gnat-gpl specific changes. > Further from upstream naming but simplifies SLOT logic in eclass a > lot (in the long run, no need to issue one more conditional for > another new version). > > I am leaning more towards option one (gnat-gpl-2005.1), for > "consistency with upstream" reason, as it will be (potentially) less > confusing to the users. However I am interested in opinions.. If the 2005 does turn out to be a release date rather than the standard name, then it makes sense as a release version; gnat-gpl-2005 would be enough. Later releases can add a point revision if necessary; if you do 2005.1 now, what happens if upstream release gnat-gpl-2005.1.tgz? Another possibility is gnat-gpl-3.4.5.2005, but I'm not sure that it's worth it. -- Kevin F. Quinn -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
