On Feb 7 16:12, Denis Excoffier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 03:25:20PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> On Feb 7 15:09, Denis Excoffier wrote: > >> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 05:29:27PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> 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? > I didn't know because /usr/include/process.h was still there. Only a > "tar tvf" told me this today. Perhaps we should do: > > rm `tar tf <last-cygwin-package-installed>` # you got the idea > before > tar xf <new-cygwin-package-to-install> # here also > > at any cygwin package switch? Or at least compare the respective > results of "tar tf". What do you think? > >> > >> - Why is that such a big problem? Changing process.h to cygwin/process.h > >> should work, right? > Oh yes, sure. When you have the necessary pieces it's rather easy. > For the record, also perl-5.14.2 seems broken.
I moved the file back to /usr/include for the next release, which will probably not be too far in the future... 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
