Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

Looks like the issue resolution I linked to wasn't enough. I honestly lost track of the exact stack of dependencies that were affected and it's not yet clear to me where the actual problem lives. Maybe I'll just keep this open for further experiments.

update: maybe just follow

• tonistiigi/binfmt:latest (qemu 9.2.0) segfault on ubuntu-24.04 / ubuntu-latest docker/setup-qemu-action#198
• ppc64le job with ubuntu-rolling started failing when running run-on-arch-install.sh uraimo/run-on-arch-action#160

uraimo is gonna do a major release soon, so maybe wait for that and then bump the workflow?

yup, that seems to be the plan at the moment !

Looking good so far, so I linked back the two issues this is supposed to fix.
I will undraft this later if affected jobs complete successfully (or, if they fail with clearly different failure modes) !

Great, it seems to have worked here - and I already went ahead and implemented it in my own package too.

Should we just revert back to ubuntu-latest while we're at it?

p.s. I am now officially annoyed by http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html always blocking CI and failing link check. Why are we even linking to a license we're not using? That is issue for another day.

Should we just revert back to ubuntu-latest while we're at it?

In my opinion we're better off with explicit version pinning here, don't you think ?