X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=GSZRumib70XzgY5S
	JU3hlTTVWYkkd+ScG/+EckCnHaTGiGWJPeXG6vJ0puinYBReSDP6TtZEPblrpNKU
	IGdzjwZt5qZd6LXl07kzD6mplD3iQwRrEB1MVzlSxfGB4XVz/zlf3YWvCuk7DI2v
	5wvwR+oMZixbdsf/9ivZsvWKEZQ=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=8gwvxqjGURSyP3Sme+enfb
	55Vss=; b=ix8GBwr69P0J8NzmWw4Id2ykDnMEicMKqFVQcPl7L9GSqOJ/GJul7h
	prJ3MU5Qd8i/HwhovkBxOlP3+Ex8vWMQ/y2Idc6hBa8ZEssrRSJLZomMPt+H+D30
	jaxnHvfOXDOiqxWwS0IHehNQfL3yqxVwJ7CYprbJJX1/R5p0akcNo=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1054, Hx-spam-relays-external:ESMTPA
X-HELO:	out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-ME-Sender:	<xms:pnvnWIa6zaQ90DE1qDywr9XgaZWSCZBTU1vG2jAPsWy2tfamPjbteQ>
Subject:	Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
To:	The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<aefa5249-51e8-c320-7614-8354b8890da1 AT gmail DOT com> <7e8b44e4-78e9-f9a8-63c1-0979bcecbb87 AT gmail DOT com> <2b672a97-dc43-492f-48d0-c1fabdb7d56c AT gmail DOT com> <76251bb5-9303-6456-11b4-755032891880 AT gmail DOT com> <4e5dde61-633a-a8c1-d143-affb537f1e0c AT gmail DOT com> <159206dc-84d4-e34b-9be3-3d57d682b68e AT gmail DOT com> <9cda83a9-14b1-b997-4ee4-42cf1a602cce AT gmail DOT com> <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd AT cygwin DOT com>
From:	Jon Turney <jon DOT turney AT dronecode DOT org DOT uk>
Message-ID:	<703af550-db59-326a-83bd-7407fb752612@dronecode.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:44:32 +0100
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com>

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

- Raw text -