64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

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.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[Marco Atzeri]

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

Regards
MArco

--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

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.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[Marco Atzeri]

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.

I miss the relevance of your last comment; there are
~ 473 empty binary package in the distribution.

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.

Regards
Marco





--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

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 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.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[Marco Atzeri]

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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

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.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[Marco Atzeri]

On 04/04/2017 19:19, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 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.

I know, I am just not planning to do it before next upstream release.

Regards
Marco


--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

On 4/4/2017 1:19 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 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.
> 

There is a need if I can choose the visible package and the default is
binary install.

> Marco, you can simply remove lapack from PKG_NAMES in order to hide it
> in setup.
> 

If it isn't visible in setup.exe then the issue disappears.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[Jon Turney]

On 04/04/2017 18:19, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 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.

It's on my TODO list for calm to perhaps have it discard binary packages 
which are 1/ empty and 2/ have no dependencies, to avoid this kind of 
confusion.

Historically, this has also caused problems where people have mistakenly 
specified this empty package as a dependency (e.g. written lapack where 
they should have written liblapack0)


--
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

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

On 4/7/2017 7:44 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 18:19, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It's on my TODO list for calm to perhaps have it discard binary packages
> which are 1/ empty and 2/ have no dependencies, to avoid this kind of
> confusion.
> 

Thanks Jon.  Indeed it is confusing to have these presented in setup.

> Historically, this has also caused problems where people have mistakenly
> specified this empty package as a dependency (e.g. written lapack where
> they should have written liblapack0)

Or searching using the setup search function and finding it to install
just to get nothing.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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