Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-25 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 24 23:37, Denis Excoffier wrote: > On 2013-11-24 14:21 +01:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 24 14:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> On Nov 24 00:27, Denis Excoffier wrote: > >>> You must be talking about /usr/include/exceptions.h. I did remove it from > >>> my system on the very first s

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-25 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 24 11:57, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:21:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Nov 24 14:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> On Nov 24 00:27, Denis Excoffier wrote: > >> > You must be talking about /usr/include/exceptions.h. I did remove it from > >> > my system o

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-24 Thread Denis Excoffier
On 2013-11-24 14:21 +01:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Nov 24 14:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Nov 24 00:27, Denis Excoffier wrote: >>> You must be talking about /usr/include/exceptions.h. I did remove it from >>> my system on the very first snapshot that removed it (see a similar >>> issue a

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-24 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 02:21:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Nov 24 14:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Nov 24 00:27, Denis Excoffier wrote: >> > You must be talking about /usr/include/exceptions.h. I did remove it from >> > my system on the very first snapshot that removed it (see a simi

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-24 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 24 14:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Nov 24 00:27, Denis Excoffier wrote: > > You must be talking about /usr/include/exceptions.h. I did remove it from > > my system on the very first snapshot that removed it (see a similar > > issue about /usr/include/process.h under > > http://cygwin.com

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-24 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 24 00:27, Denis Excoffier wrote: > You must be talking about /usr/include/exceptions.h. I did remove it from > my system on the very first snapshot that removed it (see a similar > issue about /usr/include/process.h under > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-02/msg00130.html). Without > /usr/i

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-23 Thread Denis Excoffier
2013-11-23 13:25 -05:00, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 05:11:23PM +0100, Denis Excoffier wrote: >> On 2013-11-23 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> we're planning to release Cygwin 1.7.26 next week. It would be quite >>> helpful if those of you comfortable to install snapshot

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-23 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 05:11:23PM +0100, Denis Excoffier wrote: >On 2013-11-23 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>we're planning to release Cygwin 1.7.26 next week. It would be quite >>helpful if those of you comfortable to install snapshots would perform >>some last-minute testing. > >I have no ne

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-23 Thread Denis Excoffier
On 2013-11-23 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi folks, > > we're planning to release Cygwin 1.7.26 next week. It would be quite > helpful if those of you comfortable to install snapshots would perform > some last-minute testing. I have no new (see below) problem to report with this latest sna

Re: Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-23 Thread Eric Blake
On 11/23/2013 04:36 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi folks, > > we're planning to release Cygwin 1.7.26 next week. It would be quite > helpful if those of you comfortable to install snapshots would perform > some last-minute testing. > > The 2013-11-20 snapshots reflect the current state of the

Please test latest snapshots 2013-11-20

2013-11-23 Thread Corinna Vinschen
Hi folks, we're planning to release Cygwin 1.7.26 next week. It would be quite helpful if those of you comfortable to install snapshots would perform some last-minute testing. The 2013-11-20 snapshots reflect the current state of the sources and they would become 1.7.26 if no serious regression