That is why I cross posted original email to their mailing lists. Pandas builds are lengthy, codebase complex, I do not remember (m)any patches (besides disabling tests) coming up for those architectures, pretty much for every release we ended up filling RM requests for those architectures. I really do not see the point of wasting computational resources by building on those architectures
On February 24, 2018 3:16:49 PM EST, Julien Puydt <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >Le 24/02/2018 à 21:08, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : >> No, leave "Architecture: any". Then the builds will fail on those >> arches. This is what porters generally prefer, because they have a >> clear information about what is wrong with the package on their >> arch (and possibly they can act and send patches). > >>From the original mail, it doesn't look like porters have been helpful >yet. Perhaps a better suggestion would be : get in touch the porters >before you decide to let things down... > >Snark on #debian-science -- Sent from a phone which beats iPhone.
