Path: csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Matthias Klose Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python,linux.debian.devel.release Subject: Re: llvmlite, numba, and llvm versions Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:00:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: "M. Zhou" , Diane Trout X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Feb 18 19:53:02 2025 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.496 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -2.7 Old-X-Envelope-From: doko@debian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22826 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/c4fc7064-1f2b-44de-b049-db3eece16b1a@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 28 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: Debian Python , debian-release@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:39:05 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <128a5dff67746a5120e3ab36650282b267a3652d.camel@ghic.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16723 linux.debian.devel.release:129810 On 18.02.25 19:41, M. Zhou wrote: > On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 09:50 -0800, Diane Trout wrote: >> >> Do you have any ideas of what could be done to help get a version of >> llvmlite that works with numba into Debian? > > No idea. I'm keeping an eye on upstream release but the only option > I can see to make it work is to depend on the LLVM version that does > not exist in unstable. I don't understand why the release team insists on having only a limited number of LLVM versions in a release. First, they actively make it difficult to introduce new LLVM versions, filing RC issues that hinder new versions entering testing, then they limit the number of LLVM versions. What is gained by this? A disservice to Debian's users. I had asked both the Debian and Ubuntu security teams, if they had to act on LLVM in past releases, and they both confirmed that there were no actions. So why showing this stubborn behavior? You also could vendorize the llvm version into llvmlite, or at least shrink down the Debian LLVM packaging to only ship packages needed by llvmlite. Fyi, I kept the LLVM 15 packages in Ubuntu to still ship llvmlite. See http://launchpadlibrarian.net/768702530/llvm-toolchain-15_1%3A15.0.7-15build1_1%3A15.0.7-15ubuntu1.diff.gz Matthias