Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
It seems I was a little bit out of date. Diane Trout has tried
with an unreleased snapshot which looks good with llvm-14
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1024795
Will work on it soon.
On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 18:04 -0500, M. Zhou wrote:
> I'm the regular uploader of python3-llvmlite.
>
> Please give up with numba. Its core dependency llvmlite is not even
> ready for llvm != 11, while Sid had already get llvm-11 removed.
> I have tried to cherry-pick an upstream fix to bump llvmlite's
> llvm dependency to 12/14, but the autopkgtest shows numba would
> be vastly broken.
>
> Unless they bump LLVM dependency to a newer version:
> https://github.com/numba/llvmlite/issues/897
> https://github.com/numba/llvmlite/pull/830
> there is zero chance to get numba in stable. I do not want to
> bump LLVM by force and leave a broken package in stable.
>
> llvmlite's python 3.11 support is still on the way:
> https://github.com/numba/llvmlite/issues/885
>
> One possibility is that we may apply for freeze exception
> and wait for the llvmlite v0.40.0 release and see whether
> they will bump llvm dependency.
>
>
> On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 18:46 +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > Hi Timo (2022.12.22_12:56:20_+0000)
> > > > There have been rebuilds in Ubuntu that give us some idea of how much
> > > > work remains. I think it's tractable, but also will have some package
> > > > casualties.
> > > I have some spare time right now, and I am happy to help
> > > work on problematic cases, so hopefully nobody will feel left out in
> > > the cold with their favorite packages.
> >
> > Offhand, the one I most expect trouble with is numba. We were reliant on
> > upstream for the 3.10 transition, and probably will be for 3.11.
> >
> > Thanks for your help with pony ORM, Timo. I didn't think we'd be able to
> > port that without upstream, but it did end up being tractable.
> >
> > I'm expecting to have more time in the upcoming weeks, too.
> >
> > So, release team, I still think we should go ahead!
> >
> > SR
> >
>
Reply to: