From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 83952 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2017 13:04:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 83935 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2017 13:04:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Exactly, H*f:sk:76251bb, H*i:sk:4e5dde6, H*MI:sk:4e5dde6 X-HELO: mail-pg0-f49.google.com Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-pg0-f49.google.com) (74.125.83.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:04:44 +0000 Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 81so152063408pgh.2 for ; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:04:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+2HXHgMvZJHBg4P5Nw+wjx+WFDQi8RikqaP8Qqvtlxs=; b=f0I8U9RHdNGZUE/L4RyXDsJfahAFdokiGvcOp7zQwGWq/pSKI+CzLmxFlGIRbmt5rv xXVx6n8LlxT6RBm1jztzpOPu6r1uSKKvemTqyXH7dAsCN8iK6DVUY2oMkQXnbhttBQzD RUtvOoo0piOMxw0tjpY3T0GaBpYxE37qSkyqFh1/NuEVLBcUcLUTxJBQqZPb3EAHsk3O 8RBg77GPhyaruZb1FQiniNv44XSijsyWceFTcxIP2f5T9vST/ijtYRSMkK9Vc0ncM6Rn cKTfFlQOPQVRcv2JFftOlcaQ9vGjuPe+3Ewx/eSEO6pvCgSuRA0LjzN9GoyPV85B7ck5 xTwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0/OceUf2NPGu+Hp/tznkgkgnVV9R0kGJxMjrNgnvZqlGpcXG/mT5WbqaZajMQAhw== X-Received: by 10.99.96.73 with SMTP id u70mr23910489pgb.29.1491311083930; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.3.173] (wsip-66-210-0-98.ph.ph.cox.net. [66.210.0.98]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x10sm31858618pff.72.2017.04.04.06.04.42 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <7e8b44e4-78e9-f9a8-63c1-0979bcecbb87@gmail.com> <2b672a97-dc43-492f-48d0-c1fabdb7d56c@gmail.com> <76251bb5-9303-6456-11b4-755032891880@gmail.com> <4e5dde61-633a-a8c1-d143-affb537f1e0c@gmail.com> From: Marco Atzeri Message-ID: <159206dc-84d4-e34b-9be3-3d57d682b68e@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4e5dde61-633a-a8c1-d143-affb537f1e0c@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On 04/04/2017 14:43, cyg Simple wrote: > On 4/3/2017 11:44 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: >> On 03/04/2017 17:07, cyg Simple wrote: >>> On 4/3/2017 11:00 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: >>>> On 03/04/2017 16:53, cyg Simple wrote: >>>>> The file is lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz 32 bytes with no contents. I've >>>>> tried >>>>> two different mirrors. There are also no dependencies applied. >>>>> >>>>> Reverting back to lapack-3.6.1-1.tar.xz proves that it is empty as well >>>>> with the same no dependency rules. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> source only. all the contents is in: >>>> >>>> $ cygcheck -cd |grep lapack >>>> liblapack-devel 3.7.0-1 >>>> liblapack-doc 3.7.0-1 >>>> liblapack0 3.7.0-1 >>>> >>> >>> Then these should be installed dependents of the chosen lapack. Source >>> only means nothing when you can choose the binary download. >>> >> >> there are today no packages depending from lapack. >> > > Exactly but the binary install of lapack should require liblapack-devel > and liblapack0. I disagree. It will not happen for my packages > >> I miss the relevance of your last comment; there are >> ~ 473 empty binary package in the distribution. >> > > The installer chooses by default a binary install not a source install. > If there are empty binary installations then those also need to change > to install the expected binary dependencies. > >> Please note that lapack is empty but the debug file for the three >> binaries is called lapack-debuginfo anyway as the upstream source file >> is called lapack. > > While lapack-debuginfo isn't a requirement for lapack we understand its > purpose and should only be installed if chosen specifically. > -- 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