6.13.2+ds-3 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
pending,
ours is 6.13.2+ds-3.1+py315.3.
ahead of the archive (built from a source sid does not have)
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
published,
6.13.2+ds-3+py315.1.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| does the archive build this version? |
archive ftbfs
Debian's own rebuild of the version the archive carries fails too, so this failure is not the new interpreter's doing. It still blocks the transition: nobody can rebuild it until that is fixed. amd64 arm64 |
tests.reproducible-builds.org | not dated |
| does the release team track this? |
dependency level 6
The release team's own tracker lists it, and their dependency level is how the transition is sequenced: a level cannot be read as done while anything below it is outstanding. Their question is what a package's binaries depend on, not what it ships, so their verdict and ours can disagree without either being wrong. amd64 bad, arm64 bad, armhf unknown, i386 unknown, loong64 bad, ppc64el bad, riscv64 bad, s390x bad not in testing, so sid only |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC |
| Is this filed in Debian? |
#1133453
Filed by this round, or adopted from the BTS by its usertag. |
the tracker's own record | not dated |
| has anybody reported this under the usertag? |
1 bug
somebody has already reported this under the round's usertag, so it is tracked; the tag is the only record connecting what was sent to what this tracks #1133453 dart: ftbfs with GCC-16 |
the BTS usertag | not dated |
No run in this phase yet — it is pending.