X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=HXxED3E7sUDa+zem
	dzSv9N89ai3GXAq7y3saQM4v1ZiYh4qeNg2bfkTYveO+vVYYbb4FxISC0kzm9Aqg
	XwJpQ9LNMgJ7OXqsVhCG+8L3DWAfGYeqB/J30hMk+itZ7qrTjr3B9sri7wdG7Su5
	ZDZ2gh8xNw5odrdv2KiZK6crX/k=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=1P5Qf2oD4LTkCoQpLMpuXF
	SBQoc=; b=Ex6gqxYGhQVNKODGyqyZCi6DRud/oqQbpLcWKKcY5huD5O5mbEww+t
	Fi2qu/xaVSmvmpQlKtWwhCz1rwCON+DEY+dIIUYoP1fWmDY3sY0WKaRFOvPPiXXM
	Y1kJjzWsjXKSgZRooN4SGh7A4tVMc7yebce3DDMhPJI4BZyCW5weE=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Exactly, hardship, H*f:sk:76251bb, H*f:sk:4e5dde6
X-HELO: mail-io0-f176.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date         :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;        bh=Ga/+NBHjU1soxe3RCAtac4f/64tWAeVxLNOIoBPgy/8=;        b=c5Bm+PbMcM3vtG9OTfPB9LMEB5/MxGhpMdfFgSKTm/uAXN/AsKHwIjLYcwI7aevzag         ol8+cAb3TfFasDHxWjfhPe7Ppi/H+w6l7yeYBDlOY3t4itVn7Kn1mV8j64bgPLasoDRH         GYOuhlDmr20rghU3pwmNVDPOSycavb0Pkez3jbxhEdpEcsXIwV5i8fidcz2pdHe4YfmU         XZRzoWsWFlgexx3vdt25R+DJLpZguPzq4m7DKQwU/4X2CnqFo4M9E3hV16voJXE3U6N+         B+54IeFoCm94SfPdmmKiqrlwp7b71EvAniGKOHUxzr2wInlPyY2Gx5yjhmxBQVbIy7Sy         4XoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1eZw5wLxkOX3ISz6WUsEv8bQhVFbGFNBKBLUOBMAY5FbI2k79OLV/dqnwpOLiXfg==
X-Received: by 10.107.52.82 with SMTP id b79mr23036805ioa.150.1491333430025;        Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 64bit lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz - Empty
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <aefa5249-51e8-c320-7614-8354b8890da1 AT gmail DOT com> <7e8b44e4-78e9-f9a8-63c1-0979bcecbb87 AT gmail DOT com> <2b672a97-dc43-492f-48d0-c1fabdb7d56c AT gmail DOT com> <76251bb5-9303-6456-11b4-755032891880 AT gmail DOT com> <4e5dde61-633a-a8c1-d143-affb537f1e0c AT gmail DOT com> <159206dc-84d4-e34b-9be3-3d57d682b68e AT gmail DOT com> <9cda83a9-14b1-b997-4ee4-42cf1a602cce AT gmail DOT com> <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd AT cygwin DOT com>
From: Marco Atzeri <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID: <b8d7d30e-af35-34f3-7712-ebf0c042e676@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:17:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2aa7094b-6fbc-c981-c20a-4270c1d173bd@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 04/04/2017 19:19, 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.

I know, I am just not planning to do it before next upstream release.

Regards
Marco


--
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