On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:19:52PM +0000, Lennart C. Karssen wrote:
> Thanks for the bug report. I remember we discussed this some time in the past
> on the debian-med mailing list, e.g.
> [here](https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2015/07/msg00058.html) and earlier
> [here](https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2014/01/msg00177.html). At the
> time we decided to exclude the affected architectures.
Sorry, I'm doing to much different things to remember every single issue
of a certain software. :-)
> The problem is that the binary input files were generated on a little-endian
> architecture and ProbABEL makes no attempt to check for endianness. The tests
> on big-endian machines would probably pass if input files were used that were
> also created on a big-endian machine. So, I guess the failing tests could be
> 'fixed'/worked around by providing big-endian input files and trying to
> detect endianness before running the tests.
> However, I think all machines used for the kind of scientific analyses that
> ProbABEL does are little endian, therefore I'm not planning in fixing this
> any time soon (especially since the actual code will most likely work on
> big-endian machines if the input files were generated on the same
So do you think it is a sensible solution to do the following:
if architecture in (mips, s390x, hppa, powerpc, ppc64, sparc64)
make check || true
in other words hiding our eyes for those architectures where the tests
are known to fail?