2.6.1-5 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
pending,
ours is 2.6.1-6+py315.4.
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.
published,
2.6.1-5+py315.1,
as work request 980937,
which ended in work request 980949.
Which turned out to be tests-aborted: the tests were stopped: work request 980949.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| does Debian's own test suite pass? |
neutral
Debian runs no autopkgtest for this, so we have no independent baseline: nothing here distinguishes a failure this interpreter caused from one the package always had |
ci.debian.net | 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 bad, i386 bad, loong64 bad, ppc64el bad, riscv64 bad, s390x bad |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC |
| Is this filed in Debian? |
#1145293
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 #1145293 pygame: FTBFS against python 3.15rc1 |
the BTS usertag | not dated |
No run in this phase yet — it is pending.