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