Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:43:31 -0400
- From: cyg Simple <cygsimple@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
On 4/3/2017 11:44 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 03/04/2017 17:07, cyg Simple wrote:
>> On 4/3/2017 11:00 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2017 16:53, cyg Simple wrote:
>>>> The file is lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz 32 bytes with no contents. I've
>>>> two different mirrors. There are also no dependencies applied.
>>>> Reverting back to lapack-3.6.1-1.tar.xz proves that it is empty as well
>>>> with the same no dependency rules.
>>> source only. all the contents is in:
>>> $ cygcheck -cd |grep lapack
>>> liblapack-devel 3.7.0-1
>>> liblapack-doc 3.7.0-1
>>> liblapack0 3.7.0-1
>> Then these should be installed dependents of the chosen lapack. Source
>> only means nothing when you can choose the binary download.
> there are today no packages depending from lapack.
Exactly but the binary install of lapack should require liblapack-devel
> I miss the relevance of your last comment; there are
> ~ 473 empty binary package in the distribution.
The installer chooses by default a binary install not a source install.
If there are empty binary installations then those also need to change
to install the expected binary dependencies.
> Please note that lapack is empty but the debug file for the three
> binaries is called lapack-debuginfo anyway as the upstream source file
> is called lapack.
While lapack-debuginfo isn't a requirement for lapack we understand its
purpose and should only be installed if chosen specifically.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple