[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.5.0-0.8

[Ken Brown]

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?

Ken