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.
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)
--
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
