Skip to content
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

GH Actions: Run incremental portability tests on "c: packages: standard" PRs #35380

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Sep 10, 2023

Conversation

mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

@mkoeppe mkoeppe commented Mar 29, 2023

📚 Description

This runs a small subset of the Linux platforms that are part of our portability suite for all PRs that are labeled "c: packages: standard" or "c: packages: optional".

The build is run incrementally on top of the Docker images at ghcr.io

  • Packages whose build/pkgs/SPKG/configure.m4 is changed are first uninstalled by running make SPKG-uninstall.
  • For packages whose metadata in build/pkgs/ or pkgs/ is changed, make SPKG-ensure is run; this builds the package when no suitable system package is available. (In particular, it triggers the build of an optional package SPKG.)

As an illustration, we update SPKGs libbraiding (standard), kissat (optional)

Also we extend the triggers for ci-conda so that they run on PR syncs when one of the trigger labels is present.

📝 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

A test run: https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/4922782397/jobs/8793892293

Copy link
Contributor

@tobiasdiez tobiasdiez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code-wise it looks good to me.

I don't know which systems are good test candidates. For the old systems, you want to hit somewhere between "reasonably old to span a distance to the newer systems" vs "too old and makes only problems during package upgrades". Some of the systems seem a bit too old for my taste to still invest resources in continuously supporting them (e.g. when the PR fails on them but not the more modern versions). Maybe other devs have more ideas what systems should be considered the minimum supported version (with the older portability tests being nice bonuses if they pass). @dimpase ?

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented May 9, 2023

Indeed, some systems there are waytoo old, and people who run them are at risk of being hacked. We should not support such systems.

I don't see e.g. why fedora-31 is there (it's EOL since 2020-11-24) `https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/eol/

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented May 9, 2023

I also don't see a point in gentoo-python3.9 - Gentoo has switched to Python 3.11 (and was on 3.10 since summer 2022).
We should not test configs noone in right mind would use.

Actually, this applies to the whole minimal target, which is just a waste of resources. Noone builds gcc spkg in real life, unless by mistake.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 9, 2023

this applies to the whole minimal target, which is just a waste of resources. Noone builds gcc spkg in real life, unless by mistake.

The minimal configuration does not build gcc.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 9, 2023

We should not support such systems.

Discussions of what systems to support are best placed in #32074.
But random tickets should not break platforms that currently work. This is what the selection of platforms here attempts. Obviously when making such a selection, there is potential for bikeshedding.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 9, 2023

For the old systems, you want to hit somewhere between "reasonably old to span a distance to the newer systems" vs "too old and makes only problems during package upgrades".

Yes, this is a good observation, and is part of the considerations that I use.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 9, 2023

I don't see e.g. why fedora-31 is there (it's EOL since 2020-11-24)

Yes, all fedora releases are very short-lived; there's no LTS.

I'm using old fedora as a proxy for RHEL releases. RHEL 8 is based on Fedora 28 (which we no longer test, see #32074).

Copy link
Contributor

@tobiasdiez tobiasdiez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minimal target also seems to take too much time as some of the tests time out after 6h. Can we use standard?

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 10, 2023

Can we use standard?

No, because we are running this workflow to test package installation.
On new enough systems, simply the system package would be accepted and then the package won't be tested.

If we wanted to use also some "standard" configurations, we would have to determine which packages in build/pkgs are modified (for example, using https://github.com/marketplace/actions/changed-files) and then explicitly trigger their build (either with make SPKG or ./configure ... --without-system-SPKG.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 10, 2023

some of the tests time out after 6h

Yes, there's something that needs to be improved. The 32bit target is building too many packages.

The fedora-37 is just hanging.

I'll investigate.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 10, 2023

The 32bit target is building too many packages.

No, looking right. This is testing the openssl upgrade, which triggers a python3 rebuild, which triggers the reinstallation of the Python packages.

Rare event, will only happen with upgrades of the python3 spkg or its dependencies.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 10, 2023

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 10, 2023

This time fedora-37 went through normally. So nothing wrong with it.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 10, 2023

So let's get this in please. Refinements along the lines of #35380 (comment) can be made later if desired

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 25, 2023

What would be the work item here?

@dimpase

This comment was marked as abuse.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 25, 2023

You want the level of discourse we are having on the "drop Python 3.8" PR (which is "I'm the reviewer, I can block stuff basically as I please"), you have it now, except that it's now your work blocked for no good (for you) reason.

Dima, this is highly inappropriate. I have referred this message, in which you appear to endorse retaliatory behavior on PRs, to sage-abuse.

@tobiasdiez
Copy link
Contributor

What would be the work item here?

Addressing the reviewer comments?!

You want the level of discourse we are having on the "drop Python 3.8" PR (which is "I'm the reviewer, I can block stuff basically as I please"), you have it now, except that it's now your work blocked for no good (for you) reason.

Dima, this is highly inappropriate. I have referred this message, in which you appear to endorse retaliatory behavior on PRs, to sage-abuse.

I think you misunderstood Dima. In my view, he was only factually describing the situation. We have a PR here that is got reviewer comments where the creator doesn't agree with these comments.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 26, 2023

What would be the work item here?

Addressing the reviewer comments?!

Are you referring to the demand that I "propose my own compromise" (a compromise with what or with who?) or something else?

Dima had a question re fedora; I have answered it.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 2, 2023

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 3c410d8; changes) is ready! 🎉

@orlitzky
Copy link
Contributor

orlitzky commented Sep 2, 2023

These would be run in addition to the usual CI jobs, right? And what they would test (beyond the usual CI) is the uninstall-and-reinstall process on top of an existing docker image?

I'm sceptical that an incremental build will catch many problems that a build-from-scratch would miss, but I know it's happened before when dependencies or Makefile rules get messed up. And I don't mind wasting Github's money. So it LGTM if the Github voodoo works.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented Sep 3, 2023

These would be run in addition to the usual CI jobs, right?

Yes, this complements both the Build & Test (which runs on every PR and only does one platform, and does not do anything with upgrades of packages that it has taken from the system) and the CI Linux (which only runs on release tags or manual tagging for trigger the CI).
The new workflow is much less heavyweight than the full CI Linux (which uses dozens of parallel jobs), making it suitable for running it automatically on PRs.

And what they would test (beyond the usual CI) is the uninstall-and-reinstall process on top of an existing docker image?

I'm using the incremental build to cut down the build time. The uninstall-and-reinstall game is to make sure that in the presence of usable system packages, the change actually gets tested.

I'm sceptical that an incremental build will catch many problems that a build-from-scratch would miss, but I know it's happened before when dependencies or Makefile rules get messed up.

Right, that's a minor additional useful thing that this checks.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented Sep 3, 2023

Thanks for reviewing.

May I set it to "positive review"?

@orlitzky
Copy link
Contributor

orlitzky commented Sep 3, 2023

The uninstall-and-reinstall game is to make sure that in the presence of usable system packages, the change actually gets tested.

Oh, that's the part I overlooked completely. OK.

Yeah, I'll set it to positive review. I think there are cases where we should let old distros break if it makes sage developers' lives easier, but that eternal argument is happening elsewhere.

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

orlitzky approved this PR

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented Sep 3, 2023

I think there are cases where we should let old distros break if it makes sage developers' lives easier, but that eternal argument is happening elsewhere.

Sure, that's #32074. We just dropped some distros with old GCCs

vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2023
…: packages: standard" PRs

    
<!-- Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
-->
<!-- Don't put issue numbers in the title. Put it in the Description
below. -->
<!-- For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#12345", use "Add a new method to
multiply two integers" -->

### 📚 Description
This runs a small subset of the Linux platforms that are part of our
portability suite for all PRs that are labeled "c: packages: standard"
or "c: packages: optional".

The build is run incrementally on top of the Docker images at ghcr.io
- Packages whose `build/pkgs/SPKG/configure.m4` is changed are first
uninstalled by running `make SPKG-uninstall`.
- For packages whose metadata in `build/pkgs/` or `pkgs/` is changed,
`make SPKG-ensure` is run; this builds the package when no suitable
system package is available. (In particular, it triggers the build of an
optional package SPKG.)

As an illustration, we update SPKGs `libbraiding` (standard), `kissat`
(optional)

Also we extend the triggers for ci-conda so that they run on PR syncs
when one of the trigger labels is present.

<!-- Describe your changes here in detail. -->
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
- Resolves sagemath#31501
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. It should be `[x]` not `[x
]`. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->

A test run:
https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/4922782397/jobs/8793892293
    
URL: sagemath#35380
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): github-actions[bot], Matthias Köppe, Michael Orlitzky, Tobias Diez
vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2023
…: packages: standard" PRs

    
<!-- Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
-->
<!-- Don't put issue numbers in the title. Put it in the Description
below. -->
<!-- For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#12345", use "Add a new method to
multiply two integers" -->

### 📚 Description
This runs a small subset of the Linux platforms that are part of our
portability suite for all PRs that are labeled "c: packages: standard"
or "c: packages: optional".

The build is run incrementally on top of the Docker images at ghcr.io
- Packages whose `build/pkgs/SPKG/configure.m4` is changed are first
uninstalled by running `make SPKG-uninstall`.
- For packages whose metadata in `build/pkgs/` or `pkgs/` is changed,
`make SPKG-ensure` is run; this builds the package when no suitable
system package is available. (In particular, it triggers the build of an
optional package SPKG.)

As an illustration, we update SPKGs `libbraiding` (standard), `kissat`
(optional)

Also we extend the triggers for ci-conda so that they run on PR syncs
when one of the trigger labels is present.

<!-- Describe your changes here in detail. -->
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
- Resolves sagemath#31501
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. It should be `[x]` not `[x
]`. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->

A test run:
https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/4922782397/jobs/8793892293
    
URL: sagemath#35380
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): github-actions[bot], Matthias Köppe, Michael Orlitzky, Tobias Diez
vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2023
…: packages: standard" PRs

    
<!-- Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
-->
<!-- Don't put issue numbers in the title. Put it in the Description
below. -->
<!-- For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#12345", use "Add a new method to
multiply two integers" -->

### 📚 Description
This runs a small subset of the Linux platforms that are part of our
portability suite for all PRs that are labeled "c: packages: standard"
or "c: packages: optional".

The build is run incrementally on top of the Docker images at ghcr.io
- Packages whose `build/pkgs/SPKG/configure.m4` is changed are first
uninstalled by running `make SPKG-uninstall`.
- For packages whose metadata in `build/pkgs/` or `pkgs/` is changed,
`make SPKG-ensure` is run; this builds the package when no suitable
system package is available. (In particular, it triggers the build of an
optional package SPKG.)

As an illustration, we update SPKGs `libbraiding` (standard), `kissat`
(optional)

Also we extend the triggers for ci-conda so that they run on PR syncs
when one of the trigger labels is present.

<!-- Describe your changes here in detail. -->
<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
- Resolves sagemath#31501
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. It should be `[x]` not `[x
]`. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->

A test run:
https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/4922782397/jobs/8793892293
    
URL: sagemath#35380
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): github-actions[bot], Matthias Köppe, Michael Orlitzky, Tobias Diez
@vbraun vbraun merged commit 54481a5 into sagemath:develop Sep 10, 2023
15 of 21 checks passed
@mkoeppe mkoeppe added this to the sage-10.2 milestone Sep 10, 2023
@orlitzky
Copy link
Contributor

This failed on https://github.com/sagemath/sage/actions/runs/6139901053, output is mysterious but if I had to guess it has something to do with it being a package removal and not a change.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Sep 11, 2023

Does this also pick up Python packages installed via pip --user ?

vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Dec 10, 2023
… all `upstream_url`s.

    
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->

https://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/changes24-28.txt

Also, motivated by a mistake I made while preparing this PR
(sagemath#36774 (comment)),
and previously in sagemath#35380 (see sagemath#36781), and countless other times, I am
changing all `upstream_url`s to use `VERSION` instead of the hardcoded
version number. This makes it less error-prone to use `sage -package
update SPKG NEW_VERSION` and `sage -package update-latest`. These
commands now also display the URL from which they are downloading the
tarball, and they warn if the `upstream_url` field does not contain the
`VERSION` variable.

(Exceptions: `ipykernel`, which is fixed in sagemath#36129, and `libbraiding`,
which is fixed in sagemath#36781)

Because some of the `upstream_url` need the version in a different
format, a mechanism to refer to the components of a version is added:
The strings `VERSION_MAJOR`, `VERSION_MINOR`, `VERSION_MICRO` can be
used. For added readability, instead of the naked strings, also the
notation `${VERSION_MAJOR}` etc. can be used. For example, `nauty`,
which previously had to use a hardcoded version number, now uses the
upstream URL pattern
`upstream_url=https://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/nauty${VERSION_MAJOR}_${VER
SION_MINOR}_${VERSION_MICRO}.tar.gz`

The syntax `${VERSION_MAJOR}`, borrowed from Bourne shell, matches what
sage-bootstrap already uses in
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/.upstream.d/10-SAGE_SERVER

<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->
- Depends on sagemath#36771 (merged here)

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
    
URL: sagemath#36774
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): David Coudert
vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Dec 10, 2023
    
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->
As previously observed in sagemath#36283, the intended upgrade of libbraiding to
1.2 as part of sagemath#35380 was faulty, and as a result we have a
`libbraiding-1.2.tar.gz` on our mirrors that is actually 1.1.

Here we rectify the situation.

<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
    
URL: sagemath#36781
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): Dima Pasechnik
vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2023
… all `upstream_url`s.

    
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->

https://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/changes24-28.txt

Also, motivated by a mistake I made while preparing this PR
(sagemath#36774 (comment)),
and previously in sagemath#35380 (see sagemath#36781), and countless other times, I am
changing all `upstream_url`s to use `VERSION` instead of the hardcoded
version number. This makes it less error-prone to use `sage -package
update SPKG NEW_VERSION` and `sage -package update-latest`. These
commands now also display the URL from which they are downloading the
tarball, and they warn if the `upstream_url` field does not contain the
`VERSION` variable.

(Exceptions: `ipykernel`, which is fixed in sagemath#36129, and `libbraiding`,
which is fixed in sagemath#36781)

Because some of the `upstream_url` need the version in a different
format, a mechanism to refer to the components of a version is added:
The strings `VERSION_MAJOR`, `VERSION_MINOR`, `VERSION_MICRO` can be
used. For added readability, instead of the naked strings, also the
notation `${VERSION_MAJOR}` etc. can be used. For example, `nauty`,
which previously had to use a hardcoded version number, now uses the
upstream URL pattern
`upstream_url=https://pallini.di.uniroma1.it/nauty${VERSION_MAJOR}_${VER
SION_MINOR}_${VERSION_MICRO}.tar.gz`

The syntax `${VERSION_MAJOR}`, borrowed from Bourne shell, matches what
sage-bootstrap already uses in
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/develop/.upstream.d/10-SAGE_SERVER

<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->
- Depends on sagemath#36771 (merged here)

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
    
URL: sagemath#36774
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): David Coudert
vbraun pushed a commit to vbraun/sage that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2023
    
<!-- ^^^^^
Please provide a concise, informative and self-explanatory title.
Don't put issue numbers in there, do this in the PR body below.
For example, instead of "Fixes sagemath#1234" use "Introduce new method to
calculate 1+1"
-->
<!-- Describe your changes here in detail -->
As previously observed in sagemath#36283, the intended upgrade of libbraiding to
1.2 as part of sagemath#35380 was faulty, and as a result we have a
`libbraiding-1.2.tar.gz` on our mirrors that is actually 1.1.

Here we rectify the situation.

<!-- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!-- If this PR resolves an open issue, please link to it here. For
example "Fixes sagemath#12345". -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately. -->

### 📝 Checklist

<!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!-- If your change requires a documentation PR, please link it
appropriately -->
<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
<!-- Feel free to remove irrelevant items. -->

- [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

<!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on
- sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency
- sagemath#34567: ...
-->

<!-- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're
here to help! -->
    
URL: sagemath#36781
Reported by: Matthias Köppe
Reviewer(s): Dima Pasechnik
@mkoeppe mkoeppe added the disputed PR is waiting for community vote, see https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ label Dec 23, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c: packages: standard disputed PR is waiting for community vote, see https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

build/make/Makefile.in: Add make targets "SPKG-ensure"
5 participants