Hi Diane! Diane Trout <di...@ghic.org> writes:
> Hi, > > I have a version of llvmlite that builds against llvm-19 with 2 test > failures that don't look to important. One of them is definitely just > the layout of the object file changed from what was expected. > > I got most of the help in the comments in here: > https://github.com/numba/llvmlite/pull/1092 [snip] > I also pushed all my changes to numba for it to build with the above > version of llvmlite and numpy 2.2 > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/numba.git > > (numba should work, though I had to merge a small change to the tests > that I forgot to push to salsa a while ago, and it's building again, > but I'm tired and it'll take a while to run through all the tests > again) > > I hope it's still not too late to get numba back in to testing. Has a bug been filed against llvmlite? If not, shouldn't there be one? It seems to be that the worst case scenario would be a friendly NMU, and a bug is required for that. If llvmlite counts as a toolchain package then release team approval for an unblock will also be needed. The release team tends to get progressively busier as the release approaches, so filing an unblock authorisation bug sooner rather than later demonstrates courtesy and goodwill imho. I believe that you will find support for a cherry-picked llvmlite fix, because you have been working towards supporting Trixie's release goals since February :) I'm not sure if this link: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/128a5dff67746a5120e3ab36650282b267a3652d.ca...@ghic.org should go at the llvmlite bug, or the release team bug, or both. Please feel free to keep me in CC, because I'd appreciate the encouragement of seeing that our processes still work. Kind regards, Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
