64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty

[cyg Simple]

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