From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66896 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2017 11:44:40 -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 66877 invoked by uid 89); 7 Apr 2017 11:44:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1054, Hx-spam-relays-external:ESMTPA X-HELO: out1-smtp.messagingengine.com Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:44:38 +0000 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D6720809 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:44:38 -0400 X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host86-179-113-198.range86-179.btcentralplus.com [86.179.113.198]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B23E97E669 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty To: The Cygwin Mailing List 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> <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com> From: Jon Turney Message-ID: <703af550-db59-326a-83bd-7407fb752612@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:44:00 -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: <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 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