* 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty @ 2017-04-03 14:52 cyg Simple 2017-04-03 15:00 ` Marco Atzeri 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: cyg Simple @ 2017-04-03 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-03 14:52 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty cyg Simple @ 2017-04-03 15:00 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-03 15:07 ` cyg Simple 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-03 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-03 15:00 ` Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-03 15:07 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-03 15:44 ` Marco Atzeri 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: cyg Simple @ 2017-04-03 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-03 15:07 ` cyg Simple @ 2017-04-03 15:44 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-04 12:43 ` cyg Simple 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-03 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-03 15:44 ` Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-04 12:43 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-04 13:04 ` Marco Atzeri 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: cyg Simple @ 2017-04-04 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-04 12:43 ` cyg Simple @ 2017-04-04 13:04 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-04 17:03 ` cyg Simple 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-04 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-04 13:04 ` Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-04 17:03 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-04 17:19 ` Yaakov Selkowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: cyg Simple @ 2017-04-04 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-04 17:03 ` cyg Simple @ 2017-04-04 17:19 ` Yaakov Selkowitz 2017-04-04 19:17 ` Marco Atzeri ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Yaakov Selkowitz @ 2017-04-04 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-04 17:19 ` Yaakov Selkowitz @ 2017-04-04 19:17 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-05 17:10 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-07 11:44 ` Jon Turney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-04 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-04 17:19 ` Yaakov Selkowitz 2017-04-04 19:17 ` Marco Atzeri @ 2017-04-05 17:10 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-07 11:44 ` Jon Turney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: cyg Simple @ 2017-04-05 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-04 17:19 ` Yaakov Selkowitz 2017-04-04 19:17 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-05 17:10 ` cyg Simple @ 2017-04-07 11:44 ` Jon Turney 2017-04-07 13:43 ` cyg Simple 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Jon Turney @ 2017-04-07 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Cygwin Mailing List 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty 2017-04-07 11:44 ` Jon Turney @ 2017-04-07 13:43 ` cyg Simple 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: cyg Simple @ 2017-04-07 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-04-07 13:43 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-04-03 14:52 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty cyg Simple 2017-04-03 15:00 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-03 15:07 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-03 15:44 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-04 12:43 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-04 13:04 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-04 17:03 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-04 17:19 ` Yaakov Selkowitz 2017-04-04 19:17 ` Marco Atzeri 2017-04-05 17:10 ` cyg Simple 2017-04-07 11:44 ` Jon Turney 2017-04-07 13:43 ` cyg Simple
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).