2.3.3+dfsg-4 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
pending,
ours is 2.3.3+dfsg-4.1+poy315.2.
Rebuilding it releases 15 packages waiting on it, as this stage last counted.
aborted,
2.3.3+dfsg-4+py315.1,
as work request 1273563,
which ended in work request 1273565.
Which turned out to be build-failed: the workflow ended: build-failed, work request 1273565.
Sent before this one:
2.3.3+dfsg-3+py315.1.
A version that was sent is spent, whatever came of it.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 2026-09-10 |
ci.debian.net | not dated |
| does the release team track this? |
dependency level 4
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 bad, i386 bad, loong64 bad, ppc64el bad, riscv64 bad, s390x bad |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC |
| 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 #1144864 pandas: FTBFS building against python 3.15 |
the BTS usertag | not dated |
No run in this phase yet — it is pending.