1.6.0-2 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
pending,
ours is 1.6.0-2+py315.1.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
published,
1.6.0-2+py315.1.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 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 unknown, ppc64el bad, riscv64 bad, s390x bad |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC |
No run in this phase yet — it is pending.