build/pkgs/singular: Update to 4.4.0p6

[mkoeppe]

📝 Checklist

• The title is concise and informative.
• 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 and checked the documentation preview.

⌛ Dependencies

• Depends on Fix tests with singular 4.4.0p3 #38689 (merged here)

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 49e6e0f; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

[mkoeppe]

Segfaults in src/sage/rings/lazy_series_ring.py

[antonio-rojas]

Segfaults in src/sage/rings/lazy_series_ring.py

Have the affected sage modules been rebuilt? There are ABI changes. I'm not getting a segfault, but a test failure:

**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/rings/lazy_series_ring.py", line 2008, in sage.rings.lazy_series_ring.LazyPowerSeriesRing.__init__
Failed example:
    TestSuite(L).run(skip=['_test_revert'])
Expected nothing
Got:
    Failure in _test_associativity:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/misc/sage_unittest.py", line 298, in run
        test_method(tester=tester)
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/categories/semigroups.py", line 123, in _test_associativity
        tester.assertEqual((x * y) * z, x * (y * z))
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/unittest/case.py", line 885, in assertEqual
        assertion_func(first, second, msg=msg)
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/unittest/case.py", line 878, in _baseAssertEqual
        raise self.failureException(msg)
    AssertionError: s + ([61 chars]^4*t+2*s^2*t^3+5*s*t^4) + (s^7+3*s^5*t^2+2*s^4[27 chars],t)^8 != s + ([61 chars]^4*t+4*s^3*t^2+2*s^2*t^3+5*s*t^4) + (s^7+3*s^5[37 chars],t)^8
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Failure in _test_distributivity:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/misc/sage_unittest.py", line 298, in run
        test_method(tester=tester)
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/categories/distributive_magmas_and_additive_magmas.py", line 83, in _test_distributivity
        tester.assertEqual((x + y) * z, (x * z) + (y * z))
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/unittest/case.py", line 885, in assertEqual
        assertion_func(first, second, msg=msg)
      File "/usr/lib/python3.12/unittest/case.py", line 878, in _baseAssertEqual
        raise self.failureException(msg)
    AssertionError: 2 + ([60 chars]3) + (s^5+5*s^4*t+4*s^3*t^2+4*s^2*t^3+5*s*t^4+[36 chars],t)^7 != 2 + ([60 chars]3) + 4*s^2*t^2 + (s^5+5*s^4*t+4*s^3*t^2+4*s^2*[48 chars],t)^7
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The following tests failed: _test_associativity, _test_distributivity
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  35 in sage.rings.lazy_series_ring.LazyPowerSeriesRing.__init__
    [687 tests, 1 failure, 17.73 s]

[tornaria]

@antonio-rojas I'm tempted to start treating *p* versions as prereleases, i.e. ignore them and only consider non-p versions as stable. ¿What do you think?

Cf: Singular/Singular#497

[antonio-rojas]

@antonio-rojas I'm tempted to start treating *p* versions as prereleases, i.e. ignore them and only consider non-p versions as stable. ¿What do you think?

Cf: Singular/Singular#497

I would like to hear a clear statement from upstream about their versioning (but after several attempts that seems too much to ask)

[antonio-rojas]

The test failure is an upstream bug

Singular/Singular#1241

[antonio-rojas]

And now 4.4.0p3 gives two new failures, apparently due to different Gröbner bases

**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/libs/singular/option.pyx", line 29, in sage.libs.singular.option
Failed example:
    with opt_ctx(red_tail=False, red_sb=False):
       std(I)[-1]
Expected:
    d^2*e^6 + 8*c^3 + ...
Got:
    d^2*e^6 + 10*b^2*c - 47*b*c^2 + 8*c^3 + 56*b^2*d - 34*b*c*d - 43*c^2*d + 19*b*d^2 + 51*c*d^2 - 20*d^3 + 7*b^2*e + 9*b*c*e - 43*c^2*e - 62*b*d*e + 3*c*d*e + 26*d^2*e - 47*b*e^2 + 37*c*e^2 - 35*d*e^2 - 39*e^3
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py", line 178, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal
Failed example:
    I.change_ring(P.change_ring(IntegerModRing(2 * 7))).groebner_basis()
Expected:
    [x + 9*y + 13*z, y^2 + 3*y, y*z + 7*y + 6, 2*y + 6, z^2 + 3, 2*z + 10]
Got:
    [x + 7*y + z + 4, y^2 + 3*y, y*z + 7*y + 6, 2*y + 6, z^2 + 3, 2*z + 10]
**********************************************************************

[antonio-rojas]

Opened #38689 to fix test failures with version 4.4.0p3 and higher

[orlitzky]

Obsolete now, we've got a newer version:

$ cat build/pkgs/singular/package-version.txt 
4.4.1