* 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).