Web lists-archives.com

Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty




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