9.1.1-1 in the archive, ships a compiled extension
built,
ours is 9.1.1-1+py315.1,
waiting on python-cython-blis, python-cytoolz, python-srsly.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
published,
9.1.1-1+py315.1,
as work request 1248857.
| Question | Answer | Said by | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| do Debian's own tests pass? |
archive tests fail
Debian's own tests for this package fail in unstable, so this failure is not the new interpreter's doing. debci answers about the source rather than about the version we rebuilt, which is why the date its run happened is shown. amd64, arm64, last run 2026-09-05 |
ci.debian.net | 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 bad, arm64 bad, armhf bad, i386 bad, loong64 unknown, ppc64el unknown, riscv64 bad, s390x bad not in testing, so sid only |
release.debian.org, from their ben tracker | 2026-09-16 04:49 UTC |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9.1.1-1+py315.1
|
arm64 | test | fail | rebuilt | named none | — | 2026-09-09 17:35 |
9.1.1-1+py315.1
|
amd64 | test | fail | rebuilt | named none | — | 2026-09-09 17:33 |
9.1.1-1
|
arm64 | test | fail | the archive's (reference arm) | 3.15 | — | 2026-09-09 15:18 |
9.1.1-1
|
amd64 | test | fail | the archive's (reference arm) | 3.15 | — | 2026-09-09 15:18 |
9.1.1-1+py315.1
|
arm64 | build | pass | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-09 17:33 |
9.1.1-1+py315.1
|
amd64 | build | pass | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-09 17:32 |