Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:04:36 +0200
- From: Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
On 04/04/2017 14:43, cyg Simple wrote:
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
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 disagree. It will not happen for my packages
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