64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
Tue Apr 4 17:03:00 GMT 2017
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.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin