0.5.4+git99g-1 in the archive
build failed,
ours is 0.5.4+git99g-1+py315.1.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
aborted,
0.5.4+git99g-1+py315.1,
as work request 1439320,
which ended in work request 1439322.
Which turned out to be build-failed: the workflow ended: build-failed, work request 1439322.
Sent before this one:
0.5.4+git99f4689-2+py315.1, 0.5.4+git99f4689-2+py315.2.
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 |
| 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 #1149308 (done) rdflib-sqlalchemy: FTBFS against python 3.15rc2 (No module named 'pkg_resources') |
the BTS usertag | not dated |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.5.4+git99g-1
|
amd64 | test | pass | archive | 3.14, 3.15 | — | 2026-10-10 15:16 |
0.5.4+git99g-1+py315.1
|
all | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-10-10 18:21 |
0.5.4+git99f4689-2+py315.2
|
all | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-25 03:23 |
0.5.4+git99f4689-2
|
amd64 | test | fail | the archive's (reference arm) | 3.14 | — | 2026-08-27 03:28 |
0.5.4+git99f4689-2+py315.1
|
all | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-08-27 05:57 |