From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44407 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2017 15:44:57 -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 44328 invoked by uid 89); 3 Apr 2017 15:44:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:7e8b44e, H*f:sk:2b672a9, H*i:sk:2b672a9, dependents X-HELO: mail-pg0-f43.google.com Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-pg0-f43.google.com) (74.125.83.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:44:55 +0000 Received: by mail-pg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id g2so122609774pge.3 for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:44:56 -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=fDQsdVMRCY0RsIK/cy5e6gt2udc5cp6BnQy4lS+0XCM=; b=DCEPCEeEaxfMv5TNUlsH+pElRJ2Mj8Jp0N0lfYMgJcUUMaRvoq6i+d0kwboVWSc8u3 uJu7qs4UlOAdu6XN0BRoi/nh8bleeUocLk0NoYaUP8C9xVMNGA51bjPmOSNjRKTcsyc7 f3Ei/KSFsji3R3e7OQN5qs4HxTMM2HLnBpSDWywuQOClRqsT093gn7EV1puJQeUSAknM gg0mnLdLjYrzsttuVK608Ns33rDyURvRpdyg7e+mQs/zbrUUXzEDo30znutBO4+sz33T FbnNPhcAKodZOBODUjlvA1/8inPvJboOBxLHJGfnHMCwTBRYNtRFGSYagqnM4J5WWgB4 MaxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3OwzMbjb8D8aH7dQY/LD+/OdGZjlAGivrKzDZ3/3ADm+qT63CPFYsSntEIN4FdTQ== X-Received: by 10.98.107.194 with SMTP id g185mr18415110pfc.22.1491234294594; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:44:54 -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 62sm26760380pfk.21.2017.04.03.08.44.53 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:44:53 -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> From: Marco Atzeri Message-ID: <76251bb5-9303-6456-11b4-755032891880@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:44:00 -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: <2b672a97-dc43-492f-48d0-c1fabdb7d56c@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 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