Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] octave-ltfat_2.2.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
* Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2017-01-09 10:18]:
My personal inclination would have been to remove the binary on
mips64el, because I think that it is better to ship no binary than to
ship a possibly buggy binary.
Yes, I have thought about this. There may be always the possibility
that, by skipping the unit test on a given architecture, bugs are not
exposed and we ship a buggy package. A possible better solution would be
to add a progress meter for each test, but this means changing the
upstream code. I must confess that I took the easiest road to fix the
problem.
At any rate, I just checked the build logs and it still FTBFS, but I
cannot understand the reason. Also, there are other problems with the
unit tests, as well. I hope I will have time to get to this before the
hard freeze deadline.
Rafael
Reply to: