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