64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
Yaakov Selkowitz
yselkowitz@cygwin.com
Tue Apr 4 17:19:00 GMT 2017
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
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list