1.3.2-9 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
tests failed,
ours is 1.3.2-9+py315.1.
tests ran 3.13
a retest under this interpreter would settle it
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
published,
1.3.2-9+py315.1.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 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 |
| did its tests run this interpreter? |
others only
Its tests named the interpreters they ran and ours was not among them, so whatever they say is about those. A census blocker explains most of them: the package builds against whatever `python3-dev` points at. Without one, a retest under this interpreter would settle it. ran 3.13 |
the harness that ran them | not dated |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.3.2-9+py315.1
|
arm64 | test | fail | rebuilt | 3.13 | ok | 2026-08-02 20:22 |
1.3.2-9+py315.1
|
amd64 | test | fail | rebuilt | 3.13 | ok | 2026-08-02 22:52 |