Shortcuts

/
focus the search box
Escape
leave the search, or close a menu or this
r
cycle the refresh interval
t
cycle the theme
?
this list

← Release team

libprelude

5.2.0-5.6 in the archive, ships a compiled extension

i
debci
graph
scan
states
sync
transition

Where it stands

built, ours is 5.2.0-5.7+py315.2.
ahead of the archive (built from a source sid does not have)

Rebuilding it releases 1 package waiting on it, as this stage last counted.

What was sent

published, 5.2.0-5.6+py315.2, as work request 1208620.

What is known

QuestionAnswerSaid byAs of
Why did the build fail? unknown
The log was read and says nothing this tool recognises. These are the failures somebody has to look at. 		deps/11 not dated
Which known interpreter change does this failure show? module-not-importable
a dependency was not importable. Nothing here says the interpreter caused this. An import that failed usually means the testbed was assembled before the dependency had been rebuilt, which is ours to fix by running it again.
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'distutils'
could not import distutils 		deps/11 not dated
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
do Debian's own tests pass? archive tests fail
Debian's own tests for this package fail in unstable, so this failure is not the new interpreter's doing. debci answers about the source rather than about the version we rebuilt, which is why the date its run happened is shown.
amd64, arm64, last run 2026-09-05 		ci.debian.net not dated
does the release team track this? dependency level 0
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 unknown, arm64 unknown, armhf unknown, i386 unknown, loong64 unknown, ppc64el unknown, riscv64 unknown, s390x unknown
not in testing, so sid only 		release.debian.org, from their ben tracker 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC
Is this filed in Debian? #1081473
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
#1081473 FTBFS with Python 3.13 		the BTS usertag not dated

Runs

VersionArchKindResultBinariesInterpretersClosureFinished
5.2.0-5.7+py315.2 arm64 test pass rebuilt named none — 2026-09-08 19:37
5.2.0-5.7+py315.2 amd64 test pass rebuilt named none — 2026-09-08 19:35
5.2.0-5.7+py315.2 arm64 build pass unknown not read yet — 2026-09-08 19:36
5.2.0-5.7+py315.2 amd64 build pass unknown not read yet — 2026-09-08 19:34
5.2.0-5.7+py315.2 all build pass unknown not read yet — 2026-09-08 19:34
5.2.0-5.6 arm64 test fail the archive's (reference arm) named none — 2026-09-08 09:26
5.2.0-5.6 amd64 test fail the archive's (reference arm) named none — 2026-09-08 09:26
5.2.0-5.6+py315.2 arm64 build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-09-01 08:46
5.2.0-5.6+py315.2 amd64 build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-09-01 08:49
5.2.0-5.6+py315.2 all build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-09-01 08:48
5.2.0-5.6+py315.1 amd64 build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-08-09 16:23
5.2.0-5.6 arm64 test fail the archive's (reference arm) named none — 2026-08-02 15:26
5.2.0-5.6 amd64 test fail the archive's (reference arm) named none — 2026-08-02 15:26
5.2.0-5.6+py315.1 arm64 build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-08-02 19:10
5.2.0-5.6+py315.1 amd64 build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-08-02 20:16
5.2.0-5.6+py315.1 amd64 build fail unknown not read yet — 2026-08-02 20:16