X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:25:20 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: cygwin-1.7.10-1
Message-ID: <20120207142520.GB3178@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <announce DOT 20120205162927 DOT GA5926 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20120207141017 DOT GA3776 AT qp9482>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120207141017.GA3776@qp9482>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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