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
