Hi Diane,
On Sunday, 17 September 2017 22:14:18 AEST Diane Trout wrote:
> I just did it that way because it was the least disruptive change I
> could make that would let me build and test the package.
Sure, that's entirely sensible.
> In my experience I'm much more likely to to notice a build ti
On 18/09/17 09:48, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Hi Diane,
>
> On Sunday, 17 September 2017 22:14:18 AEST Diane Trout wrote:
>> I just did it that way because it was the least disruptive change I
>> could make that would let me build and test the package.
>
> Sure, that's entirely sensible.
>
>> In m
On 18.09.2017 19:24, Gordon Ball wrote:
> On 18/09/17 09:48, Stuart Prescott wrote:
>> Hi Diane,
>>
>> On Sunday, 17 September 2017 22:14:18 AEST Diane Trout wrote:
>>> I just did it that way because it was the least disruptive change I
>>> could make that would let me build and test the package.
>
Hi,
in a Github issue[1] upstream told suggested to move from nosetest
to pytest for python-pysam[2] package. Any hint how to approach
this?
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://github.com/pysam-developers/pysam/issues/541
[2] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/python-pysam.git
--
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> in a Github issue[1] upstream told suggested to move from nosetest
> to pytest for python-pysam[2] package. Any hint how to approach
> this?
You are asking for it in d/rules:
export PYBUILD_TEST_NOSE=1
(plus some related lines a
> the biggest downside with this approach is that you *completely* skip
> any
> testing on other architectures than amd64. Is that what you really
> want? Dear
> porters, have fun where to search for bugs in packages without
> testsuites!
Ok you convinced me. dh_auto_tests stay.
Is there anythi
6 matches
Mail list logo
