From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130814 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2017 17:19:06 -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 130719 invoked by uid 89); 4 Apr 2017 17:19:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Exactly, Hx-languages-length:661, hardship, H*f:sk:76251bb X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:19:04 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A76EEF20 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:19:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 85A76EEF20 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=yselkowitz@cygwin.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 85A76EEF20 Received: from [10.10.120.19] (ovpn-120-19.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6EFF5DC1D for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:19:03 +0000 (UTC) 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> <159206dc-84d4-e34b-9be3-3d57d682b68e@gmail.com> <9cda83a9-14b1-b997-4ee4-42cf1a602cce@gmail.com> From: Yaakov Selkowitz Message-ID: <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9cda83a9-14b1-b997-4ee4-42cf1a602cce@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On 2017-04-04 12:03, cyg Simple wrote: > On 4/4/2017 9:04 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: >> On 04/04/2017 14:43, cyg Simple wrote: >>> >>> Exactly but the binary install of lapack should require liblapack-devel >>> and liblapack0. >> >> I disagree. It will not happen for my packages > > What's the hardship that causes you to make such a bold statement? You > upload the same number of files, the only difference is telling setup > that the package has dependencies. It's not a question of hardship, there is simply no need for it. Marco, you can simply remove lapack from PKG_NAMES in order to hide it in setup. -- Yaakov -- 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