New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
arb: 2.17.0 -> 2.18.0 #90466
arb: 2.17.0 -> 2.18.0 #90466
Conversation
Some adjustments to the sage testsuite necessary. |
I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info |
The latest sage master now supports/requires CC @omasanori and @collares in case either of you plans to work on the next sage update. |
@timokau Ack. Thank you for letting us know. |
Related: #109890 The way I have always kept it is to
The reason for (1) is that it simplifies the actual update (ideally we only need to update the sage source and remove most of the patches) and does not block the dependencies. The downside is that The reason for (2) is again that it simplifies the update process. Instead of having to fix all the breakage that the update introduces at once, the work can be split over a longer time and multiple commits. Nix specific regressions can be reported/fixed during the beta phase. By the time the new release is official, the update is already almost finished. Having intermediate commits for the beta releases can also help when trying to pin down regressions with That's just my process though. It has its upsides and its downsides. If you want to tackle the next update, whatever works best for you is good :) |
Thank you for your explanation, @timokau! That makes sense. I will try 2.18.1 first then, as 2.19 (latest) is not known to work with SageMath. |
Okay, feel free to ping me if you need a review. If you end up trying 2.19 you could open an upstream trac ticket and report your results there. If you encounter packaging specific issues, the sage-packaging mailing list may also be able to help. |
Semi-automatic update generated by nixpkgs-update tools. This update was made based on information from https://repology.org/metapackage/arb/versions.
meta.description for arb is: "A library for arbitrary-precision interval arithmetic"
meta.homepage for arb is: "http://arblib.org/"
meta.changelog for arb is: ""
Updates performed
To inspect upstream changes
Impact
Checks done (click to expand)
built on NixOS
The tests defined in
passthru.tests
, if any, passed0 of 0 passed binary check by having a zero exit code.
0 of 0 passed binary check by having the new version present in output.
found 2.18.0 with grep in /nix/store/158kc1a36c2jwi8859155wgmlab58mmj-arb-2.18.0
directory tree listing: https://gist.github.com/1085b667bcc61cdb6e38e2c56600fdc6
du listing: https://gist.github.com/c76ee51c86f9fb428bb819ee480a88ef
Rebuild report (if merged into master) (click to expand)
Instructions to test this update (click to expand)
Either download from Cachix:
(r-ryantm's Cachix cache is only trusted for this store-path realization.)
For the Cachix download to work, your user must be in the
trusted-users
list or you can usesudo
since root is effectively trusted.Or, build yourself:
After you've downloaded or built it, look at the files and if there are any, run the binaries:
Pre-merge build results
We have automatically built all packages that will get rebuilt due to
this change.
This gives evidence on whether the upgrade will break dependent packages.
Note sometimes packages show up as failed to build independent of the
change, simply because they are already broken on the target branch.
Result of
nixpkgs-review
12 packages failed to build:
- sage (sagemath)
- sageWithDoc
1 package built:
- arb
Maintainer pings
cc @7c6f434c @timokau for testing.