0.7.2-2 in the archive
built,
ours is 0.7.2-3+py315.d.1.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
published,
0.7.2-3+py315.d.1,
as work request 1287836.
| 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 |
tests.reproducible-builds.org | not dated |
| does the release team track this? |
dependency level 7
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 unknown, arm64 unknown, armhf unknown, i386 unknown, loong64 unknown, ppc64el unknown, riscv64 unknown, s390x unknown |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-10-12 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 #1147229 python-term-image: FTBFS against python 3.15rc2 |
the BTS usertag | not dated |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.7.2-3+py315.d.1
|
amd64 | test | pass | rebuilt | named none | — | 2026-09-16 14:48 |
0.7.2-2
|
amd64 | test | fail | the archive's (reference arm) | named none | — | 2026-09-16 09:19 |
0.7.2-3+py315.d.1
|
all | build | pass | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-16 14:47 |