On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:25:11PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Could you explain why you did these changes?
because I read 803275 quickly and didn't recognized it as a ftbfs report
of archs were it never compiled, and at a first glance it looked 2 ftbfs
report both valid but one (this) a bit mis
Hi Matthia,
I think that 810709 and 803275 are quite distinct problems:
* 803275 is on failures on several non-amd64 architectures
* 810709 is a general FTBFS due to a changed Cython/3.5
Also, 803411 still blocks 803275, since the problem mentioned there
caused the FTBFS on s390 (although this i
2 matches
Mail list logo
