On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 04:00:23PM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:52:56PM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:43:00PM +0200, Anton Gladky wrote: > > > > > one more option is to drop pandas on those archs (filing > > > RM bug) and fill the list of supported archs explicitly > > > in d/control. > > > > If the pandas binaries are known broken on those archs, then it is the only > > acceptable solution (I guess the debate is then about how broken they are). > > > And BTW, the arch list should not be restricted. If the pkg FTBFS on those > archs because of the testsuite, then it is fine to leave it like that. This > may > attract the attention of porters who could provide a patch (or the problem may > disappear later because it is fixed in the toolchain or upstream).
I'm perfectly fine with this solution as long as we *finally* get some progress to let pandas and statsmodels migrate to testing. From the build logs I concluded that a very minor number of tests were failing and thus the packages are usable in principle. However, I agree that attracting the attention of more competent people might be a sensible point. So who is going to file the RM bug? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
