fix: attempt to force latest build number for compilers

[beckermr]

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[beckermr]

@conda-forge-admin rerender

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-webservice.

I tried to rerender for you but ran into some issues. Please check the output logs of the latest webservices GitHub actions workflow run for errors. You can also ping conda-forge/core for further assistance or you can try rerendering locally.

This message was generated by GitHub actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-ci-setup-feedstock/actions/runs/11043527540.

[beckermr]

ouch another rerender error. I suspect something is still broken in how the latest conda-build versions inject variables into the jinja2 templates.

[beckermr]

@conda-forge-admin rerender

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-webservice.

I tried to rerender for you but ran into some issues. Please check the output logs of the latest webservices GitHub actions workflow run for errors. You can also ping conda-forge/core for further assistance or you can try rerendering locally.

This message was generated by GitHub actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-ci-setup-feedstock/actions/runs/11043589110.

[beckermr]

@conda-forge-admin rerender

[beckermr]

@conda-forge-admin rerender

[jakirkham]

Looks promising 🙂

[jakirkham]

Continuing discussion in issue: conda-forge/binutils-feedstock#78

[beckermr]

Oh fascinating. These builds with the c compiler included appear to pass. OTOH these builds failed: https://dev.azure.com/conda-forge/feedstock-builds/_build/results?buildId=1037636&view=logs&j=09c6ee00-92ab-5751-f80f-c049ce8ce0ed&t=7a4216ee-c61d-5132-71cd-0d47b3b4b519

[jakirkham]

Repeating this comment ( #349 (comment) ) to keep everything in this thread

We noticed the conda-forge-ci-setup cross-compiled architectures are failing (for example)

__main__.py: error: argument --sysroot: expected one argument

This led us to the cross-python package, which has this logic in its activation script:

    $BUILD_PREFIX/bin/python -m crossenv $PREFIX/bin/python \
        --sysroot $CONDA_BUILD_SYSROOT \
        --without-pip $BUILD_PREFIX/venv \
        --sysconfigdata-file "$sysconfigdata_fn" \
	--machine ${machine} \
        --cc ${CC:-@CC@} \
        --cxx ${CXX:-@CXX@}

So for some reason $CONDA_BUILD_SYSROOT is now undefined

Certainly if we add the compilers (as done here), CONDA_BUILD_SYSROOT will be set by the compilers

  "CONDA_BUILD_SYSROOT,${CONDA_PREFIX}@LIBRARY_PREFIX@/@CHOST@/sysroot" \

However that means all users of cross-python now need to add the compilers as a build dependency (if they don't already). Is this an expected/intended change?