Hi Julien, On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 08:25:17AM +0200, Julien Yann Dutheil wrote: > Yes, indeed. The other test that somehow fails was known to us. It is > actually badly designed because it relies on simulations, and has a 5% > change or so to fail just by chance. I guess that is time to do sthg about > that.
It would be very sensible to make this at least a non-failing test if it bears the chance to fail. > Yet I am puzzled about the mips thing: the failling test performs > some calculation which just gives a very different result on this > architecture, and I have no idea why :s Me neither. Perhaps there is a chance to consult debian-m...@lists.debian.org. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de