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

[Jon Turney]

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 
confusion.

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
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple