Re: How to deal with pandas
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
Reply to: