On 4/3/2017 11:44 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 03/04/2017 17:07, cyg Simple wrote: >> On 4/3/2017 11:00 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: >>> On 03/04/2017 16:53, cyg Simple wrote: >>>> The file is lapack-3.7.0-1.tar.xz 32 bytes with no contents. I've >>>> tried >>>> two different mirrors. There are also no dependencies applied. >>>> >>>> Reverting back to lapack-3.6.1-1.tar.xz proves that it is empty as well >>>> with the same no dependency rules. >>>> >>> >>> >>> source only. all the contents is in: >>> >>> $ cygcheck -cd |grep lapack >>> liblapack-devel 3.7.0-1 >>> liblapack-doc 3.7.0-1 >>> liblapack0 3.7.0-1 >>> >> >> Then these should be installed dependents of the chosen lapack. Source >> only means nothing when you can choose the binary download. >> > > there are today no packages depending from lapack. >
Exactly but the binary install of lapack should require liblapack-devel and liblapack0. > I miss the relevance of your last comment; there are > ~ 473 empty binary package in the distribution. > The installer chooses by default a binary install not a source install. If there are empty binary installations then those also need to change to install the expected binary dependencies. > Please note that lapack is empty but the debug file for the three > binaries is called lapack-debuginfo anyway as the upstream source file > is called lapack. While lapack-debuginfo isn't a requirement for lapack we understand its purpose and should only be installed if chosen specifically. -- 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