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=k3wPzkUDblxLHUds
	cQoBvK5tkpQMFOEkCxPJc5xVSIZv3ulZXJ94F3MTTM5YuS4V1Rxf4tqG3S3rUSpU
	8NVUe1IZRmhC38+9r4GWkXOMHllwDiP3mkT0KXhw7255SsmstBp5rbaH+gEisxEv
	8SalG8++sbNKj0dabCIfloeV/Q0=
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: 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> <703af550-db59-326a-83bd-7407fb752612@dronecode.org.uk>
From: cyg Simple <cygsimple@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8b7f2478-ea15-04ab-e525-23cbaebba764@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:43:01 -0400
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: <703af550-db59-326a-83bd-7407fb752612@dronecode.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 4/7/2017 7:44 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks Jon.  Indeed it is confusing to have these presented in setup.

> 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)

Or searching using the setup search function and finding it to install
just to get nothing.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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