[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.5.0-0.8

[Ken Brown]

On 3/19/2016 8:34 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/19/2016 6:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Mar 18 22:24, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2016 7:29 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>>>> On 2016-03-18 18:05, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-03-18 17:25, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/18/2016 5:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 18 16:58, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2016 4:34 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I released a new Cygwin TEST version 2.5.0-0.8.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If things are not going very wrong, this is basically what you'll
>>>>>>>>> get as 2.5.0-1 release.  Please, please test and report
>>>>>>>>> regressions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this release include Yaakov's overhaul of the feature test
>>>>>>>> macros?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I completely forgot to metion this in my release mail, which
>>>>>>> is especially weird because I created this test release to allow
>>>>>>> testing
>>>>>>> the new feature test macros in the first place.  Sorry!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem I reported in
>>>>>> https://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-12/msg00183.html has
>>>>>> reappeared.
>>>>>> It looks like your fix
>>>>>> (https://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-12/msg00199.html) got
>>>>>> reverted.
>>>>>
>>>>> The commit message for removing the include did not indicate what
>>>>> prompted it.  However, the include is necessary for BSD compatibility,
>>>>> and other software fails to build without it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would look into emacs and see what feature test macro(s) they enable
>>>>> on *Linux*, and use the same for Cygwin.
>>>>
>>>> Might this be it?
>>>>
>>>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lib/sys_select.in.h
>>>
>>> This file is part of the Gnulib module that I mentioned in the thread I
>>> cited above.
>>>
>>>> There's some seriously hackish things going on in that file, some of
>>>> them Cygwin specific.
>>>
>>> I think such things are often necessary in Gnulib, but I'll leave it
>>> to Eric
>>> to comment further.  In any case, Eric said in our original
>>> discussion that
>>> there might be a Gnulib fix for this problem, but then he and Corinna
>>> ended
>>> up deciding it was better to remove the include.
>>
>> Glibc uses __USE_MISC to guard the inclusion of sys/select.h, newlib's
>> header uses __BSD_VISIBLE which is almost the same.  But we have the
>> equivalent __MISC_VISIBLE as well.  Do you want to change that, Yaakov?
>>
>> The discussion with Eric was about the POSIX-ness and at the time it
>> seemed like the simplest solution to remove the include.  But Yaakov
>> is right.  If it's the right thing to do for Glibc to include it
>> with careful guarding, it should be the right thing for us as well.
>
> So I think that means we're back to looking for a Gnulib solution. Eric,
> can you follow up on that?

Never mind.  I just sent a report to bug-gnulib, so you can follow up there.

Ken