CI Linux: Replace use of pkill #36726

mkoeppe · 2023-11-15T19:42:42Z

Follow-up after:

.github/workflows/docker.yml: Interrupt the build before the 6 hour cancellation #36670

This is working well, for example see https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6874334523/job/18695809308#step:11:5345, making it possible to obtain the image of the hanging build - https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6874334523/job/18695809308#step:15:25

However, pkill is not present on many of our -minimal configurations (which test our documented minimal build prerequisites). For example debian-sid-minimal, as seen in https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6874334523/job/18695811066#step:11:2262, rendering the mechanism ineffective there. (Neither are ps and killall.)

Examples:

docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-debian-bookworm-minimal-with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill"
docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-fedora-38-minimal-with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill"
whereas docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-fedora-38-standard-with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill" --> /usr/bin/pkill.

We replace pkill by more primitive means.

Test run (with timeout set to ~11 minutes for testing purposes): https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6883232154/job/18723359505#step:15:25

📝 Checklist

The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
I have created tests covering the changes.
I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

kwankyu · 2023-11-16T11:06:59Z

The code is getting arcane. This is to support debian-sid. I am very ignorant of the Linux eco-system, and my naive question is: Do we need to support debian-sid? By a quick search, sid is said to be very unstable version of debian and is never released for end users. So it seems to make little sense that we should write such arcane code to support it...

Code in ci pipelines does not have to be pretty but should be clean enough to be maintainable by future maintainers...

dimpase · 2023-11-16T11:28:52Z

it's probably a short-lived bug in sid, and I say - send them a bug report, but don't bother with a dodgy workaround

mkoeppe · 2023-11-16T16:34:27Z

Actually, debian-sid was just an example, sorry for leading both of you on the wrong track. I'll update the ticket description

mkoeppe · 2023-11-16T16:44:03Z

Code in ci pipelines does not have to be pretty but should be clean enough to be maintainable by future maintainers...

Indeed. I've added a detailed comment.

kwankyu

Thanks. LGTM.

mkoeppe · 2023-11-17T01:13:24Z

Thank you!

dimpase · 2023-11-17T09:06:26Z

hmm, isn't "minimal" something we define? install packages with pkill in, done ...

mkoeppe · 2023-11-17T17:02:22Z

isn't "minimal" something we define?

It's something that we have defined, but not arbitrarily. It consists of the packages needed for bootstrapping and building the Sage distribution.

dimpase · 2023-11-17T23:00:14Z

on Debian pkill is in procps

so let's add procps to the list of CI Debian packages

mkoeppe · 2023-11-17T23:01:53Z

The major point of the "minimal" package configuration is to test that the documented minimal list of build requirements works. Adding random stuff to it weakens this purpose.

dimpase · 2023-11-18T00:50:16Z

is pkill only used in CI? then why not just add it.

mkoeppe · 2023-11-18T00:51:54Z

I just explained it. If we add it, then the CI no longer tests what it should test.

dimpase · 2023-11-18T10:03:54Z

pkill is a part of testing infrastructure.

I just explained it. If we add it, then the CI no longer tests what it should

I just explained it. If we add it, then the CI no longer tests what it should test.

No, pkill is not part of Sage, it's a part of testing infrastructure. I don't see why you insist on testing infrastructure to be broken, doing dodgy things with /proc and what not instead. Negative review.

mkoeppe · 2023-11-18T14:50:26Z

Please, Dima, let's increase the level of discourse here.

mkoeppe · 2023-11-18T14:52:05Z

dodgy things with /proc and what not

/proc is the stable interface of the Linux kernel for precisely this information. I'm accessing it with standard Unix command line tools. If you have a concern about this, please be more specific.

kwankyu · 2023-11-21T02:19:10Z

Do we have a mechanism to resolve the dead-lock state of a PR like this one? I don't think so. As we have several such PRs (where labelling wars are going on) by now, the lack of the mechanism seems seriously hinder the progress of our project.

I know that Matthias does not like poll as the mechanism. So I suggest a mild alternative (automatic poll) to it. First let me be clear that I designed the alternative mechanism to be advantageous to the author.

(1) A PR is in dead-lock state when there are "Approving" reviews and "Requesting changes" (disapproving) reviews that appear on the "Reviewers" section on the upper right side, and the author is not accepting the work items or the reasons of the disapproving reviews. If a PR is in dead-lock state, we put both "needs work" (or "needs info") and "needs review" label to the PR.

(2) If a PR is in dead-lock state, other people may come and give their own "Approving" or "Disapproving" reviews using the GitHub review system.

(3) If a week has passed in dead-lock state with more "Approving" reviews than "Disapproving" reviews, the author attains the right to put "positive review" label to the PR, and the dead-lock state is resolved.

If both of you agree, then I may post this proposal to sage-devel to get community-wide approval.

Edit: "negative review" was replaced with "disapproving review"

mkoeppe · 2023-11-21T03:17:59Z

[...] "Requesting changes" (negative) reviews [...]

I think I have to caution that using the phrase "negative review" in drafting such rules for PRs is already highly problematic.

The search https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc+%22negative+review%22 shows that this phrase has not been used in Sage development discussions since around 2010, until its reintroduction this year.

This phrase basically denies that:

the standard in our community is to conduct technical discussions of the necessary depth to find the right solutions, to debate in good faith, and to generally use a constructive, collegial approach.

Instead, this phrase suggests that decisions can be taken just based on individuals being "for" or "against" something; that opinions matter but reasons do not. Designing conflict resolution based on counting "positive reviews" against "negative reviews" reinforces this.

kwankyu · 2023-11-21T03:44:53Z

As I see it, the cause of labelling war is "political" instead of "technical". If the issue is "technical", there is a better and right solution that we can converge into by more discussion. When the issue is "political", there are more than one good solutions (or bad solutions depending on your point of view) and it's a matter of choice to choose one rather than the other other. Then how do we know that an issue is "political"? Practically we should admit that the issue is "political" when we go on labelling war instead of doing discussion.

kwankyu · 2023-11-21T03:47:44Z

We may use "Disapproving review" instead of "negative review" if you prefer.

By the way, I am abusing "Requesting changes" as a means to express "Disapproving" review as there is no other alternative way.

dimpase · 2023-11-21T15:50:06Z

dodgy things with /proc and what not

/proc is the stable interface of the Linux kernel for precisely this information. I'm accessing it with standard Unix command line tools. If you have a concern about this, please be more specific.

pkill is much more standard than /proc. It's present on all the systems I looked at, including even OpenBSD (which, by the way, has no /proc).

Besides, you never explained how getting pkill installed on CI is going to make CI not as good. There is absolutely no need to get into low-level system programming here.

My proposal to fix this issue is as follows:

diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/alpine.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/alpine.txt
index 159c452cf30..350cc8e2c26 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/alpine.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/alpine.txt
@@ -9,3 +9,4 @@ gcc
 g++
 ca-certificates
 coreutils
+procops
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/arch.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/arch.txt
index 9b9bf09e7e2..f2631868f4e 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/arch.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/arch.txt
@@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ bc
 gcc
 # Needed for 4ti2:
 which
+procps
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/conda.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/conda.txt
index d76388ce7bb..26fc374139d 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/conda.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/conda.txt
@@ -5,3 +5,4 @@ perl
 python
 tar
 bc
+procps
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt
index 50be6ac7e0b..e322a08ba2e 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ python3
 tar
 bc
 gcc
+procps
 # On debian buster, need C++ even to survive 'configure'. Otherwise:
 # checking how to run the C++ preprocessor... /lib/cpp
 # configure: error: in `/sage':
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/fedora.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/fedora.txt
index b35d7f64faf..250578c31ef 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/fedora.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/fedora.txt
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ gcc
 gcc-c++
 # Needed according to embray at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/26964:
 # The need for which comes [...] from MPIR's configure script
+procps
 findutils
 which
 diffutils
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/gentoo.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/gentoo.txt
index 1e26c46cacc..b624ae66e5d 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/gentoo.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/gentoo.txt
@@ -18,3 +18,4 @@ dev-libs/libxml2
 sys-apps/findutils
 sys-apps/which
 sys-apps/diffutils
+sys-process/procps
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/opensuse.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/opensuse.txt
index 6f7a11fea47..718028b2557 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/opensuse.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/opensuse.txt
@@ -27,3 +27,4 @@ gzip
 # Trac #32368
 findutils
 diffutils
+procps
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/slackware.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/slackware.txt
index 4c957e45264..c093cd0aeb7 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/slackware.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/slackware.txt
@@ -16,3 +16,4 @@ flex
 ca-certificates
 libxml2
 cyrus-sasl
+procps
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/void.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/void.txt
index 552b5a415f2..257fdd94161 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/void.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/void.txt
@@ -8,3 +8,4 @@ perl
 python3
 tar
 which
+procps

mkoeppe · 2023-11-21T16:51:40Z

dodgy things with /proc and what not

/proc is the stable interface of the Linux kernel for precisely this information. I'm accessing it with standard Unix command line tools. If you have a concern about this, please be more specific.

pkill is much more standard than /proc. It's present on all the systems I looked at, including even OpenBSD (which, by the way, has no /proc).

Only Linux matters here because this line is executed in a Linux Docker container.

And no, for Linux, pkill is not "more standard" than the /proc, which is exactly the point of this PR, and already demonstrated by the command lines in the PR description.

That it's present on all the systems you looked at is explained by these systems having an installation of many packages.

dimpase · 2023-11-21T17:34:05Z

yes, so why not just add another package?

mkoeppe · 2023-11-21T17:43:02Z

My proposal to fix this issue is as follows:

[...]
diff --git a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt
index 50be6ac7e0b..e322a08ba2e 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt
+++ b/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/debian.txt
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ python3
 tar
 bc
 gcc
+procps
 # On debian buster, need C++ even to survive 'configure'. Otherwise:
 # checking how to run the C++ preprocessor... /lib/cpp
 # configure: error: in `/sage':
[...]

Yes, I understood that this is what you propose when you said it in #36726 (comment)

By the way, the package name, procps, refers to the fact that this implementation of ps-like tools goes through /proc.

mkoeppe · 2023-11-21T18:13:20Z

you never explained how getting pkill installed on CI is going to make CI not as good.

I explained it in #36726 (comment), #36726 (comment), #36726 (comment), but I'll elaborate:

We document the minimal requirements for installing the Sage distribution from source in _prereq/distros/*.txt (and the additional requirements for bootstrapping first in _bootstrap/distros/*.txt. This is the single source for this documentation; all other places in the documentation are generated from it.
That packages in the Sage distribution use restraint regarding the prerequisites that they require is a marker of quality.
- For example, that we have to require the which tool (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/build/pkgs/_prereq/distros/fedora.txt#L32) is documented as being necessary because of one package. which is a "classic" UNIX utility, of course, but it cannot be expected to be installed on users' systems any more because it has long been superseded by built-in shell commands such as command -v in bash; and moreover it's a tool for interactive use and shouldn't really be used in scripting. So verifying whether which is still needed, to work with upstream to eliminate this requirement, would be an improvement for Sage.
- We haven't allowed packages in that have unusual requirements. See for example the discussion of jsonschema in Notebook 7, ipykernel 6.27, ipython 8.17 #36129, which in the newest versions would require either a rust compiler, or foregoing our strict from-source compilability policy, or more drastic changes.
We cannot rely on tests on developers' machines to make sure that this documentation of the minimal build requirements remains correct -- because developers' machines are typically full of development tools. We have to test it on CI; that's what the CI runs for the -minimal configurations do, in contrast to the -standard configurations.

mkoeppe · 2024-01-12T22:49:10Z

@dimpase For your reference, here's the Code of Conduct from https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md [...]

Do you have questions about it? Otherwise, I'll go ahead and offer an interpretation with examples of violations, as previously promised above in #36726 (comment)

As the misconduct has continued in https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/RdSImkzRxJI/m/CMKBJ6u6BAAJ, https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/XON6NTJa33o/m/_AmwQ6s6BAAJ, #32532 (comment), I'll proceed.

sagemathgh-36977: `sage --package metrics`: New tool to assist discussions of the Sage distribution   Discussions of the complexity of the Sage distribution pop up unexpectedly, as seen in sagemath#36982 (comment), sagemath#36982 (comment), sagemath#36982 (comment), sagemath#36982 (comment), sagemath#36982 (comment), sagemath#36982 (comment), sagemath#36982 (comment) sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment), sagemath#36726 (comment) sagemath#36777 (comment), sagemath#36777 (comment), sagemath#36777 (comment), sagemath#36777 (comment), sagemath#36777 (comment), sagemath#36777 (comment) To help put such discussions on a solid factual basis, we introduce the command `sage --package metrics`. ``` $ ./sage -package metrics :standard: has_file_distros_arch_txt=131 has_file_distros_conda_txt=216 has_file_distros_debian_txt=125 has_file_distros_fedora_txt=138 has_file_distros_gentoo_txt=181 has_file_distros_homebrew_txt=61 has_file_distros_macports_txt=129 has_file_distros_nix_txt=51 has_file_distros_opensuse_txt=146 has_file_distros_slackware_txt=25 has_file_distros_void_txt=184 has_file_patches=35 has_file_spkg_check=59 has_file_spkg_configure_m4=222 has_file_spkg_install=198 has_tarball_upstream_url=231 line_count_file_patches=22561 line_count_file_spkg_check=402 line_count_file_spkg_configure_m4=2792 line_count_file_spkg_install=2960 packages=272 type_standard=272 ``` Use `PATH=build/bin:$PATH SAGE_ROOT=some-other-worktree build/bin/sage- package metrics :standard:` to obtain the metrics of another version of Sage in some other worktree. We add computation and before/after comparison of the metrics to the CI Linux Incremental workflow. As an illustration, we change one Python package from "normal" to "wheel", removing an `spkg-install.in` file in the process. See https:// github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/7342841283/job/19992606617?pr=3697 7#step:6:12 More metrics can be added after - sagemath#36740    ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36977 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Matthias Köppe

vbraun · 2024-01-23T23:58:38Z

Editor decision

Will merge since there is a PR ready. You can argue about minimal build images vs shortening one line in a shell script, but I just don't have strong feelings either way over something this inconsequential.

Follow-up after: - sagemath#36670 This is working well, for example see https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/ac tions/runs/6874334523/job/18695809308#step:11:5345, making it possible to obtain the image of the hanging build - https://github.com/mkoeppe/sa ge/actions/runs/6874334523/job/18695809308#step:15:25 However, `pkill` is not present on many of our `-minimal` configurations (which test our documented minimal build prerequisites). For example `debian-sid-minimal`, as seen in https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions /runs/6874334523/job/18695811066#step:11:2262, rendering the mechanism ineffective there. (Neither are `ps` and `killall`.) Examples: - `docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-debian-bookworm-minimal- with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill" ` - `docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-fedora-38-minimal-with- system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill"` - whereas `docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-fedora-38-standard- with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill" ` --> `/usr/bin/pkill`. We replace `pkill` by more primitive means. Test run (with timeout set to ~11 minutes for testing purposes): https:/ /github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6883232154/job/18723359505#step:15 :25      ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36726 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Nathan Dunfield, William Stein

sagemathgh-36726: CI Linux: Replace use of pkill Follow-up after: - sagemath#36670 This is working well, for example see https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/ac tions/runs/6874334523/job/18695809308#step:11:5345, making it possible to obtain the image of the hanging build - https://github.com/mkoeppe/sa ge/actions/runs/6874334523/job/18695809308#step:15:25 However, `pkill` is not present on many of our `-minimal` configurations (which test our documented minimal build prerequisites). For example `debian-sid-minimal`, as seen in https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions /runs/6874334523/job/18695811066#step:11:2262, rendering the mechanism ineffective there. (Neither are `ps` and `killall`.) Examples: - `docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-debian-bookworm-minimal- with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill" ` - `docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-fedora-38-minimal-with- system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill"` - whereas `docker run -it ghcr.io/sagemath/sage/sage-fedora-38-standard- with-system-packages:dev bash -c "command -v pkill" ` --> `/usr/bin/pkill`. We replace `pkill` by more primitive means. Test run (with timeout set to ~11 minutes for testing purposes): https:/ /github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/6883232154/job/18723359505#step:15 :25      ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#36726 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Kwankyu Lee, Nathan Dunfield, William Stein

@mkoeppe

sagemathgh-37452: Add config for ruff (sagemath#36503, unbundled)   Author: @mkoeppe, based on @tobiasdiez's config in sagemath#36503. Adding a configuration for the ruff linter as proposed in sagemath#36503 is timely and uncontroversial. However, sagemath#36503 bundled this gratuitously with the controversial design of creating a `pyproject.toml` file in SAGE_ROOT. `pyproject.toml` -- by definition in PEP 518, PEP 621 -- marks a directory as a Python project, i.e., the source directory of a Python distribution package (sagemath#36503 (comment)). Generalizing the use of `pyproject.toml` to "[non-package projects](https://peps.python.org/pep-0735/#motivation)" is still subject to discussion in the Python community in [PEP 735](https://peps.python.org/pep-0735/) (Nov 2023). **The scope of PRs should be chosen to minimize friction, not to maximize friction.** sagemath#36726 (comment) Here we remove the artificial friction from the gratuitous bundling, by configuring ruff in `ruff.toml` instead. Configuration in ruff.toml and pyproject.toml has equal validity / standing per [ruff documentation](https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/configuration/#config-file- discovery). And this is the location of most of our other linter configuration files. Reference on previous common denominator PRs: sagemath#36666 (comment), sagemath#36666 (comment), sagemath#36572 (comment), sagemath#36960 (comment), sagemath#36960 (comment), ...    ### 📝 Checklist     - [x] The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [x] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies   URL: sagemath#37452 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s): Giacomo Pope, Matthias Köppe

@roed314

sagemathgh-37482: src/pyproject.toml: Add 'external' section per draft PEP 725 (unbundled from sagemath#37446)       This is aspirational decoration for future use by skeleton generators by distributions such as conda, sage-the-distribution, pyodide. Split out from the disputed sagemath#37446, where it is bundled with a number of other changes, including: creating a `pyproject.toml` file in `SAGE_ROOT`, hardcoding versions of Python packages instead of using the existing `sage_bootstrap` infrastructure, etc. @roed314 @vbraun **The scope of PRs should be chosen to minimize friction, not to maximize friction.** sagemath#36726 (comment) Author: @mkoeppe, based on @tobiasdiez's sagemath#37446. ### 📝 Checklist  - [X] The title is concise and informative. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [X] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies    URL: sagemath#37482 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s):

@roed314

sagemathgh-37482: src/pyproject.toml: Add 'external' section per draft PEP 725 (unbundled from sagemath#37446)       This is aspirational decoration for future use by skeleton generators by distributions such as conda, sage-the-distribution, pyodide. Split out from the disputed sagemath#37446, where it is bundled with a number of other changes, including: creating a `pyproject.toml` file in `SAGE_ROOT`, hardcoding versions of Python packages instead of using the existing `sage_bootstrap` infrastructure, etc. @roed314 @vbraun **The scope of PRs should be chosen to minimize friction, not to maximize friction.** sagemath#36726 (comment) Author: @mkoeppe, based on @tobiasdiez's sagemath#37446. ### 📝 Checklist  - [X] The title is concise and informative. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [X] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies    URL: sagemath#37482 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s):

@roed314

sagemathgh-37482: src/pyproject.toml: Add 'external' section per draft PEP 725 (unbundled from sagemath#37446)       This is aspirational decoration for future use by skeleton generators by distributions such as conda, sage-the-distribution, pyodide. Split out from the disputed sagemath#37446, where it is bundled with a number of other changes, including: creating a `pyproject.toml` file in `SAGE_ROOT`, hardcoding versions of Python packages instead of using the existing `sage_bootstrap` infrastructure, etc. @roed314 @vbraun **The scope of PRs should be chosen to minimize friction, not to maximize friction.** sagemath#36726 (comment) Author: @mkoeppe, based on @tobiasdiez's sagemath#37446. ### 📝 Checklist  - [X] The title is concise and informative. - [ ] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [X] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. ### ⌛ Dependencies    URL: sagemath#37482 Reported by: Matthias Köppe Reviewer(s):

kwankyu approved these changes Nov 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

kwankyu added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Nov 16, 2023

dimpase added s: needs review s: needs work and removed s: positive review s: needs review labels Nov 18, 2023

tobiasdiez removed s: positive review labels Jan 6, 2024

vbraun added the s: positive review label Jan 29, 2024

vbraun merged commit e7565a6 into sagemath:develop Feb 2, 2024

github-actions bot removed the s: positive review label Feb 2, 2024

tornaria mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2024

Readd init files #36753

Closed

5 tasks

dimpase mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2024

Addressing Dependency Challenges / Future of Sage-the-Distribution #39192

Closed

This was referenced Feb 21, 2025

Preliminary steps to save the CI infrastructure #39009

Closed

Disable broken and outdated CI #39467

Merged

Uh oh!

CI Linux: Replace use of pkill #36726

CI Linux: Replace use of pkill #36726

Conversation

mkoeppe commented Nov 15, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

📝 Checklist

⌛ Dependencies

Uh oh!

kwankyu commented Nov 16, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 16, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 16, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 16, 2023

Uh oh!

kwankyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 17, 2023

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 17, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 17, 2023

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 17, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 17, 2023

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 18, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 18, 2023

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 18, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 18, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 18, 2023

Uh oh!

kwankyu commented Nov 21, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 21, 2023

Uh oh!

kwankyu commented Nov 21, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kwankyu commented Nov 21, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 21, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 21, 2023

Uh oh!

dimpase commented Nov 21, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 21, 2023

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 21, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Jan 12, 2024

Uh oh!

vbraun commented Jan 23, 2024

Editor decision

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mkoeppe commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

kwankyu commented Nov 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

kwankyu commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

kwankyu commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

kwankyu commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mkoeppe commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading