Paul Millar wrote:
Indeed, but the issue is that what we have is a compilation *service* that uses an incomplete MinGW. An architecture where a service breaks at "random" times in the future is bad/broken: the methodology is wrong and needs fixing.
Still, if people don't mind the tests going AWOL for ~60% of the time, that's fine.
I guess people don't, so that's OK
(speak now or forever hold thy peace)
I am very annoyed by the fact that the tests mostly don't build. So I agree with you.
regards, Jakob
