[do not merge] meson catanh sign issue

[mbargull]

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.

On the numba feedstock we encountered a regression for glibc=2.17 via numba's test suite.
See conda-forge/numba-feedstock#128 (comment) .
Essentially, for 1.26.0, arctanh(-i) gives a "positive zero" real part -- consistent with what catanh from glibc=2.17, but different from NumPy's own implementation and catanh from glibc>2.17.
I tracked that down to be related to builds via meson, i.e., the current 1.26 but also 1.25 show the same behavior if built via meson.

I'll open an issue upstream later and let this build here with downloadable artifacts for inspection/comparison.
[EDIT]: Upstream issue: numpy/numpy#25087

I don't know why the meson-based builds show that behavior.
As expected by the observed behavior, one can see that the extension modules link to glibc's versions (not just catanh, but that is our example here):
readelf --dyn-syms 'numpy/linalg/_umath_linalg.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so' | grep -o '[^ ]*catanh[^ ]*':

• for with_meson == "yes":

  catanhf@GLIBC_2.2.5
  catanh@GLIBC_2.2.5
  catanhl@GLIBC_2.2.5
  npy_catanh
  npy_catanhf
  npy_catanhl
  

• for with_meson == "no":

  npy_catanh
  npy_catanhf
  npy_catanhl
  

[conda-forge-webservices]

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) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[mbargull]

Upstream fix at numpy/numpy#25093 .

[h-vetinari]

We can backport the patch if you want? Though I think a 1.26.2 is on the way reasonably soon, because of issues with #302

[mbargull]

Though I think a 1.26.2 is on the way reasonably soon, because of issues with #302

Yep, saw that too.

We can backport the patch if you want?

No strong opinion from my side. (TBH, I just fixed, but did not assess the impact of the issue.)
If there is need, one can cherry-pick 2620333 for main and bump the build number.