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
