#1017051 tinyarray: FTBFS on i386

#1017051#5
Date:
2022-08-12 12:36:37 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Maintainer

Your package FTBFS on i386 during the recent rebuilds for Python 3.10
[1].  I've copied what I hope is the relevant part of the log below.

Regards
Graham


[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=tinyarray


=================================== FAILURES ===================================
                                     op(a, b))
E                       AssertionError:
E                       Arrays are not equal
E
E                       Mismatched elements: 2 / 3 (66.7%)
E                       Max absolute difference: 1.11022302e-16
E                       Max relative difference: 1.11022302e-16
E                        x: array([nan+nanj,  1. +0.j,  1. +0.j])
E                        y: array([nan+nanj,  1. +0.j,  1. +0.j])

../../../test_tinyarray.py:375: AssertionError

                                     np_func(a, b))
E                       AssertionError:
E                       Arrays are not equal
E
E                       Mismatched elements: 2 / 3 (66.7%)
E                       Max absolute difference: 1.11022302e-16
E                       Max relative difference: 1.11022302e-16
E                        x: array([nan+nanj,  1. +0.j,  1. +0.j])
E                        y: array([nan+nanj,  1. +0.j,  1. +0.j])

../../../test_tinyarray.py:396: AssertionError

#1017051#10
Date:
2022-08-30 09:56:26 UTC
From:
To:
I've enabled CI/CD on Salsa and the issue is reproduced by the i386 job.

See https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/tinyarray/-/pipelines/417235

#1017051#17
Date:
2022-09-14 09:37:27 UTC
From:
To:
Also looking at #976514, I wonder whether
  Architecture: amd64
might be the best available solution.

cu
Adrian

#1017051#24
Date:
2025-04-04 11:39:50 UTC
From:
To:
Wouldn't "architecture-is-64bit" be more reasonable given that it
seems to successfully build on other 64bit (though inofficial)
architectures?

Cheers,
Sven