Path: csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Sebastian Ramacher Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python,linux.debian.devel.release Subject: Re: llvmlite, numba, and llvm versions Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:20:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Matthias Klose X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Feb 18 20:11:05 2025 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.749 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.34, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Mail-Followup-To: Matthias Klose , "M. Zhou" , Diane Trout , Debian Python , debian-release@lists.debian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Debian-User: sramacher X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22828 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Z7TpO86nF_GowOkh@ramacher.at Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 42 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: "M. Zhou" , Diane Trout , Debian Python , debian-release@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:10:35 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <128a5dff67746a5120e3ab36650282b267a3652d.camel@ghic.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16724 linux.debian.devel.release:129813 On 2025-02-18 20:39:05 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > 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. Somebody would need start to take care of RC bugs in old llvm-toolchain releases. They regularly accumulate without being fixed. Also, before you start throwing mud in our direction, we always coordinate the set of llvm-toolchain releases in a particular Debian release with the LLVM maintainers. For trixie Sylvestre back then agreed that we focus on -19 and -18 and get the others removed. Cheers > > 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 > -- Sebastian Ramacher