0.8.1+dfsg1-7 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
build failed,
ours is 0.8.1+dfsg1-7+py315.d.1.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
aborted,
0.8.1+dfsg1-7+py315.d.1,
as work request 1272876,
which ended in work request 1272878.
Which turned out to be build-failed: the workflow ended: build-failed, work request 1272878.
| 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 5
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 |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.8.1+dfsg1-7+py315.d.1
|
arm64 | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-15 02:01 |
0.8.1+dfsg1-7+py315.d.1
|
amd64 | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-15 02:01 |