1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL.RELEAS

  • Re: llvmlite, numba, and llvm versions

    From Matthias Klose@21:1/5 to M. Zhou on Tue Feb 18 21:00:02 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.python

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sebastian Ramacher@21:1/5 to Matthias Klose on Tue Feb 18 21:20:02 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.python

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)