This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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 packagesWhat'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
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |