Update conda lock files

[tobiasdiez]

📝 Checklist

Update (and minimize) the conda lock files.

• 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

• Make sage-conf optional #37138 since the configure script fails for some reason (and it is not needed anyway in conda context)

[tobiasdiez]

Tests are passing, would be nice to still merge it in this release cycle as it includes a few nice improvements (notably the docs currently don't build under conda due the missing inline tabs dependency that has been added in #37056 without updating the lock files).

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit c03018d; changes) is ready! 🎉

[dimpase]

lgtm

[roed314]

The Sage Code of Conduct Committee is setting this back to needs review for now based on it being part of @dimpase's reaction to our decision on #36181, #36561, #36676, #36951, #36964, #37351, #36999, and #36941. It can, of course, be granted positive review at a future date, and will be subject to the policy on disputed PRs as normal.

[saraedum]

Unfortunately it's not clear what is "disputed" in this PR. (As one of the people who care a lot about conda, I'd love to cast my vote here but I would like to understand both sides first.)

Btw., I think that the PR description is somehow broken. The actual description of the PR is inside the checklist section. (While you're at it, you might want to check the check list or remove it so it's immediately clear that nothing obvious is missing from that list.)

[mkoeppe]

Unfortunately it's not clear what is "disputed" in this PR.

@saraedum This PR is marked as "disputed" because it bundles the disputed #37138. The latter sabotages the PyPI distribution strategy (clearly documented in https://pypi.org/project/sage-conf/).

[mkoeppe]

Updating the conda-lock file does not require this bundling. Per PR description here "the configure script fails for some reason" -- this should be debugged, not papered over.

[saraedum]

Since the dispute is about a dependency that is also explicitly listed as a dependency here, could the "disputed" be removed then? (Otherwise, this is imho confusing for people trying to cast votes, like myself.)

[saraedum]

Since there is nothing controversial on this specific PR at the moment but rather its dependency needs a vote, I removed the disputed label.

[mkoeppe]

outdated