64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
Fri Apr 7 11:44:00 GMT 2017
On 04/04/2017 18:19, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 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.
It's on my TODO list for calm to perhaps have it discard binary packages
which are 1/ empty and 2/ have no dependencies, to avoid this kind of
Historically, this has also caused problems where people have mistakenly
specified this empty package as a dependency (e.g. written lapack where
they should have written liblapack0)
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin