Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:06:57 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: lapack 3.2.1-1
Message-ID: <20091027110657.GA24479@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20091027080250 DOT GA2076 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <51892 DOT 24214 DOT qm AT web25501 DOT mail DOT ukl DOT yahoo DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51892.24214.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:38:59AM +0000, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>--- Mar 27/10/09, Corinna Vinschen ha scritto:
>
>> On Oct 27 06:52, Fergus wrote:
>> >> New versions 3.2.1-1 of 
>> >
>> >> lapack (source)
>> >> liblapack0
>> >> liblapack-devel
>> >
>> > I can see "source" above, but the lack of an
>> > install:
>> > line under @lapack in the current setup ini file for
>> [1.7] datestamp 1256597494
>> > seems to lead to an installation error: 
>> > Can't open (null) for reading: No such file
>> 
>> I fixed that on sourceware.? The (empty)
>> lapack-3.2.1-2.tar.bz2
>> file was missing.? I created one.
>> 
>> 
>> Corinna
>
>Thanks,
>I have not noticed its absence.
>
>Is eventually a bug of cygport that does no built the 
>empty file, or it should the setup.ini build procedure to
>advise for it ?

If there is an installation error due to a missing tar.bz2 binary then
that would point to a setup.exe problem.  There's no reason why an empty
file should be required.

cgf

--
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