Skip to content

revert: chore(dev): build pixi using rattler (#713) #719

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
cpcloud merged 1 commit into from
Jan 15, 2026
Merged

revert: chore(dev): build pixi using rattler (#713) #719

cpcloud merged 1 commit into from
Jan 15, 2026

Conversation

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor

@cpcloud cpcloud commented Jan 14, 2026

Revert rattler-build. Tests were still failing when this was merged.

@copy-pr-bot
Copy link

copy-pr-bot bot commented Jan 14, 2026

Auto-sync is disabled for ready for review pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpcloud commented Jan 14, 2026

/ok to test

@cpcloud cpcloud requested a review from kkraus14 January 14, 2026 20:30
@greptile-apps
Copy link
Contributor

greptile-apps bot commented Jan 14, 2026

Greptile Summary

Reverts PR #713 which attempted to migrate from pixi-build-python to pixi-build-rattler-build backend. The original change was merged despite failing tests.

Key Changes:

  • Build backend reverted from pixi-build-rattler-build back to pixi-build-python in pixi.toml:278
  • Restored explicit build, host, and run dependencies in pixi.toml:277-299
  • Removed c_stdlib build variants from workspace configuration in pixi.toml
  • Deleted recipe.yml (rattler-build recipe file)
  • Regenerated pixi.lock with ~700 fewer lines

Confidence Score: 5/5

  • This PR is safe to merge as it cleanly reverts a known problematic change
  • The revert is straightforward and necessary - it undoes a change that caused test failures. All changes are mechanical reversions to a known working state, with proper lock file regeneration.
  • No files require special attention

Important Files Changed

Filename Overview
pixi.toml Reverted build backend from pixi-build-rattler-build to pixi-build-python, restored build/host/run dependencies, and removed c_stdlib build variants
pixi.lock Lock file regenerated to reflect dependency changes from reverting to pixi-build-python backend
recipe.yml Removed rattler-build recipe file as part of reverting to pixi-build-python backend

@cpcloud cpcloud mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2026
Open
2 tasks
@cpcloud cpcloud merged commit 7978fe2 into NVIDIA:main Jan 15, 2026
90 checks passed
@cpcloud cpcloud deleted the revert-rattler-build branch January 15, 2026 14:51
gmarkall added a commit to gmarkall/numba-cuda that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2026
@gmarkall
Bump version to 0.25.0
cf01534 
- Add Python 3.14 to the wheel publishing matrix (NVIDIA#750)
- feat: swap out internal device array usage with `StridedMemoryView` (NVIDIA#703)
- Fix max block size computation in `forall` (NVIDIA#744)
- Fix prologue debug line info pointing to decorator instead of def line (NVIDIA#746)
- Fix kernel return type in DISubroutineType debug metadata (NVIDIA#745)
- Fix missing line info in Jupyter notebooks (NVIDIA#742)
- Fix: Pass correct flags to linker when debugging in the presence of LTOIR code (NVIDIA#698)
- chore(deps): add cuda-pathfinder to pixi deps (NVIDIA#741)
- fix: enable flake8-bugbear lints and fix found problems (NVIDIA#708)
- fix: Fix race condition in CUDA Simulator (NVIDIA#690)
- ci: run tests in parallel (NVIDIA#740)
- feat: users can pass `shared_memory_carveout` to @cuda.jit (NVIDIA#642)
- Fix compatibility with NumPy 2.4: np.trapz and np.in1d removed (NVIDIA#739)
- Pass the -numba-debug flag to libnvvm (NVIDIA#681)
- ci: remove rapids containers from conda ci (NVIDIA#737)
- Use `pathfinder` for dynamic libraries (NVIDIA#308)
- CI: Add CUDA 13.1 testing support (NVIDIA#705)
- Adding `pixi run test` and `pixi run test-par` support (NVIDIA#724)
- Disable per-PR nvmath tests + follow same test practice (NVIDIA#723)
- chore(deps): regenerate pixi lockfile (NVIDIA#722)
- Fix DISubprogram line number to point to function definition line (NVIDIA#695)
- revert: chore(dev): build pixi using rattler (NVIDIA#713) (NVIDIA#719)
- [feat] Initial version of the Numba CUDA GDB pretty-printer (NVIDIA#692)
- chore(dev): build pixi using rattler (NVIDIA#713)
- build(deps): bump the actions-monthly group across 1 directory with 8 updates (NVIDIA#704)
@gmarkall gmarkall mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2026
Merged
kkraus14 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2026
@gmarkall
Bump version to 0.25.0 (#752)
bfa805a 
- Add Python 3.14 to the wheel publishing matrix (#750)
- feat: swap out internal device array usage with `StridedMemoryView`
(#703)
- Fix max block size computation in `forall` (#744)
- Fix prologue debug line info pointing to decorator instead of def line
(#746)
- Fix kernel return type in DISubroutineType debug metadata (#745)
- Fix missing line info in Jupyter notebooks (#742)
- Fix: Pass correct flags to linker when debugging in the presence of
LTOIR code (#698)
- chore(deps): add cuda-pathfinder to pixi deps (#741)
- fix: enable flake8-bugbear lints and fix found problems (#708)
- fix: Fix race condition in CUDA Simulator (#690)
- ci: run tests in parallel (#740)
- feat: users can pass `shared_memory_carveout` to @cuda.jit (#642)
- Fix compatibility with NumPy 2.4: np.trapz and np.in1d removed (#739)
- Pass the -numba-debug flag to libnvvm (#681)
- ci: remove rapids containers from conda ci (#737)
- Use `pathfinder` for dynamic libraries (#308)
- CI: Add CUDA 13.1 testing support (#705)
- Adding `pixi run test` and `pixi run test-par` support (#724)
- Disable per-PR nvmath tests + follow same test practice (#723)
- chore(deps): regenerate pixi lockfile (#722)
- Fix DISubprogram line number to point to function definition line
(#695)
- revert: chore(dev): build pixi using rattler (#713) (#719)
- [feat] Initial version of the Numba CUDA GDB pretty-printer (#692)
- chore(dev): build pixi using rattler (#713)
- build(deps): bump the actions-monthly group across 1 directory with 8
updates (#704)

<!--

Thank you for contributing to numba-cuda :)

Here are some guidelines to help the review process go smoothly.

1. Please write a description in this text box of the changes that are
being
   made.

2. Please ensure that you have written units tests for the changes
made/features
   added.

3. If you are closing an issue please use one of the automatic closing
words as
noted here:
https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-using-keywords/

4. If your pull request is not ready for review but you want to make use
of the
continuous integration testing facilities please label it with `[WIP]`.

5. If your pull request is ready to be reviewed without requiring
additional
work on top of it, then remove the `[WIP]` label (if present) and
replace
it with `[REVIEW]`. If assistance is required to complete the
functionality,
for example when the C/C++ code of a feature is complete but Python
bindings
are still required, then add the label `[HELP-REQ]` so that others can
triage
and assist. The additional changes then can be implemented on top of the
same PR. If the assistance is done by members of the rapidsAI team, then
no
additional actions are required by the creator of the original PR for
this,
otherwise the original author of the PR needs to give permission to the
person(s) assisting to commit to their personal fork of the project. If
that
doesn't happen then a new PR based on the code of the original PR can be
opened by the person assisting, which then will be the PR that will be
   merged.

6. Once all work has been done and review has taken place please do not
add
features or make changes out of the scope of those requested by the
reviewer
(doing this just add delays as already reviewed code ends up having to
be
re-reviewed/it is hard to tell what is new etc!). Further, please do not
rebase your branch on main/force push/rewrite history, doing any of
these
   causes the context of any comments made by reviewers to be lost. If
   conflicts occur against main they should be resolved by merging main
   into the branch used for making the pull request.

Many thanks in advance for your cooperation!

-->
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@kkraus14 kkraus14 kkraus14 approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@cpcloud @kkraus14