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=p1LjwO5opUTLg02P
	5K91BL1vGKWW2w6AOyVgptyukdRjABz+HvPqAt/nVpN10th8MIdz7Y/XiVAUhraY
	5UsDwGAlofRFgbqLkqRjAfd8N+zKytrd1rS9ZfL8CNNWHooKaOUYx6V/3E71ls23
	4Pzd1BJWN9h293kj+wBEraXLMeA=
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=ibBYIfRgs62/wUUp5Ggfoh
	DqMik=; b=SugRBj0MznuJBa3juhJyx+Szfu+H5ss9Ia++o/FKDe2shDnYuOLM6a
	fsUuK4etq7ey8rzioAuxxfIALsHmK2SFhOdJz0wAJrHWMuUDF1TZuvbOJXGMMhuk
	O2qQKG1/XJVa+PtrIVK/1VA2oufRcKQye7tkTLgANVJKmBC2Xtppw=
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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Exactly, hardship, bold, PKG_NAMES
X-HELO: mail-it0-f53.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date         :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;        bh=eJGWn0S7fLmGgTH4RV1F9asFy8Dz3m0IAWhRxUk3I7U=;        b=K48wQ1yIQLUoQIqs5diCNMbUQUgX1aKLLgDHnjI/UatzJRtUUs4neezZ6DTqKEzamZ         I8X8m9tFtEK1spXUVxOw/gml917+nb7g1qAQ8HHU8m/NO/5sUN6gxWUAj/6Md8mqge7Z         c4pdjS8MsZeZtwA/7dyxx+Hssb4kdOELFxLKTk6R7mn+8fhodaCWT+638z3ONfFAsObu         vuTfVtH6gF4QsP+V+yjgAwxxvzO9H3Gd3dR58k7PhP9LQwYaFXv5uObw19RpGJAwFxxS         L38+5OW5qJaY29kLxVrvTJd+1RL6pmLQXmVuesyCdFVjRyLMQi42W6vY9P0SPKoNwGIo         FMtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3XcwgcWaigujwWYRekYo/qLw48E1xqkkdSQP+8yvu+GBiIJ7PAl606IaBSKDe1FA==
X-Received: by 10.36.1.213 with SMTP id 204mr9876155itk.51.1491412238166;        Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
To: 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: cyg Simple <cygsimple AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID: <e69d5fd0-ee9c-d898-ecc6-71ac7c0b5f96@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:10:23 -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: <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 4/4/2017 1:19 PM, 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.
> 

There is a need if I can choose the visible package and the default is
binary install.

> Marco, you can simply remove lapack from PKG_NAMES in order to hide it
> in setup.
> 

If it isn't visible in setup.exe then the issue disappears.

-- 
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