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=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
To: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin@cygwin.com>
References: <aefa5249-51e8-c320-7614-8354b8890da1@gmail.com> <7e8b44e4-78e9-f9a8-63c1-0979bcecbb87@gmail.com> <2b672a97-dc43-492f-48d0-c1fabdb7d56c@gmail.com> <76251bb5-9303-6456-11b4-755032891880@gmail.com> <4e5dde61-633a-a8c1-d143-affb537f1e0c@gmail.com> <159206dc-84d4-e34b-9be3-3d57d682b68e@gmail.com> <9cda83a9-14b1-b997-4ee4-42cf1a602cce@gmail.com> <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com>
From: Jon Turney <jon.turney@dronecode.org.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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