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. Denis Excoffier. -- 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