Mail Archives: cygwin/2012/02/07/09:26:15
On Feb 7 15:09, Denis Excoffier wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 05:29:27PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>
> >> I just released 1.7.10-1.
> Fine.
> After all these snapshots, i've still 1.7.9-1 officially installed.
>
> So setup.exe uninstalls 1.7.9-1, therefore removes /usr/include/process.h
> And setup.exe then installs 1.7.10-1, therefore installs /usr/include/cygwin/process.h (as for every snapshot).
>
> Now, compilation of GCC 4.7.0 (snapshot here also) is broken due to
> absence of /usr/include/process.h.
>
> It's a pity that the Cygwin snapshot "system", while being fairly able
> to test installation of new Cygwin releases, cannot test at the same
> time the disinstallation of the associated previous releases.
Huh? The move of process.h from /usr/include to /usr/include/cygwin
was a deliberate move. The header only declares the Cygwin-specific
spawn familiy of functions.
So, here are two questions:
- Since you *knew* that the process.h header had moved for a month
(after all, it is "as for every snapshot"), why didn't you say a single
word that this may result in a problem with building gcc?
- Why is that such a big problem? Changing process.h to cygwin/process.h
should work, right?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -