Bump sources + add g++ to Dockerfile + update CHANGELOGs for 26.06 release

[puneetmatharu]

Only worthy thing of note in this is that PyTorch removed the third_party/build_bundled.py script in pytorch/pytorch#180237 to create an updated bundled license.

[nSircombe]

...this is a very long way out to be putting a 'release' date in the CHANGELOG.mds, it's normally only a few days before the actual release.
I don't think it's ideal, as it looks a little bit like the release exists. Which it doesn't.

That said, it's not a blocker, and I don't think this will be the norm.

[puneetmatharu]

...this is a very long way out to be putting a 'release' date in the CHANGELOG.mds, it's normally only a few days before the actual release.

It's normally done at the start of the release process and I'm off for a week before then so there's two weeks to handle the rest of the admin which is why I've done it now. Would you prefer I remove the name for now and actually wait until the week before to add it? Happy to do that and update our process.

[puneetmatharu]

A unit test failed and it appears to be due to a torch.compile failure which stems from not having g++ in the final image. The test for this was added a couple of weeks ago to test_transformers.py (see PR). Since this is functionality that we should support, I've opted to install g++ in the image rather than skipping the test. It'll have a knock-on effect for the SBOM but one we'll just have to accept.

[nSircombe]

...this is a very long way out to be putting a 'release' date in the CHANGELOG.mds, it's normally only a few days before the actual release.

It's normally done at the start of the release process and I'm off for a week before then so there's two weeks to handle the rest of the admin which is why I've done it now. Would you prefer I remove the name for now and actually wait until the week before to add it? Happy to do that and update our process.

I think it's ok. Just looks a bit odd, but under the circumstances I don't think we should sweat it.

[nSircombe]

From what I remember of the early SBOM work, the g++ licences won't present any big problems.

[puneetmatharu]

Agreed, I think they'll be covered by the GNU GPL v3 license