7.2.20-dfsg-2 in the archive
build failed,
ours is 7.2.20-dfsg-2+py315.d.1.
Nothing recorded is waiting on this one.
aborted,
7.2.20-dfsg-2+py315.d.1,
as work request 1396281,
which ended in work request 1396283.
Which turned out to be build-failed: the workflow ended: build-failed, work request 1396283.
Sent before this one:
7.2.16-dfsg-1+py315.d.1, 7.2.18-dfsg-1+py315.d.1, 7.2.20-dfsg-1+py315.d.1.
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 |
| 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. arm64, last run 2026-03-07 |
ci.debian.net | not dated |
| Version | Arch | Kind | Result | Binaries | Interpreters | Closure | Finished |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7.2.20-dfsg-2+py315.d.1
|
amd64 | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-29 21:33 |
7.2.18-dfsg-1
|
amd64 | test | pass | the archive's (reference arm) | named none | — | 2026-09-23 03:11 |
7.2.20-dfsg-1+py315.d.1
|
amd64 | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-23 09:07 |
7.2.18-dfsg-1+py315.d.1
|
amd64 | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-17 10:14 |
7.2.16-dfsg-1
|
amd64 | test | pass | the archive's (reference arm) | named none | — | 2026-09-16 21:21 |
7.2.16-dfsg-1+py315.d.1
|
amd64 | build | fail | unknown | not read yet | — | 2026-09-16 23:29 |