2.0.0-2 in the archive
build failed,
ours is 2.0.0-2+py315.2.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
aborted,
2.0.0-2+py315.2,
as work request 1345755,
which ended in work request 1345762.
Which turned out to be build-failed: the workflow ended: build-failed, work request 1345762.
Sent before this one:
2.0.0-2+py315.1.
A version that was sent is spent, whatever came of it.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As 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? |
tests-failed
the test suite failed, cause not narrowed. The tests failed under the new interpreter and nothing here recognises why. =================================== FAILURES =================================== |
deps/11 | not dated |
| does Debian's own test suite pass? |
not tested by debian
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 |
| 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 #1149383 python-et-xmlfile: FTBFS against python 3.15rc2 (new warnings and updated error messages) |
the BTS usertag | not dated |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.0.0-2
|
amd64 | test | pass | archive | 3.14, 3.15 | — | 2026-09-24 21:06 |
2.0.0-2+py315.2
|
all | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-24 22:49 |
2.0.0-2
|
amd64 | test | pass | archive | 3.13, 3.14, 3.15 | — | 2026-08-18 03:14 |
2.0.0-2+py315.1
|
all | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-08-18 04:27 |