chore(deps): drop redundant transitive pins from requirements

[Yicong-Huang]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Audits the explicit transitive pins in amber/requirements.txt and removes the two that serve no purpose. Verified with the pip dependency graph (Required-by) and a full pip install --dry-run --report resolution:

Pin	Verdict	Why
python-dateutil==2.8.2	Drop	Required by six installed packages (pandas, botocore, betterproto, pg8000, aiobotocore, strictyaml) — always installed regardless. A pip freeze leftover from the original requirements.txt (#1259); every dependent declares >=2.8, so the pin only held us on a 2021 release. Resolves to 2.9.0.post0
aiobotocore==3.7.0	Drop	Hard dependency of s3fs; its version is already uniquely constrained by the botocore==1.42.90 pin (aiobotocore's per-release botocore window is very narrow). Removing it eliminates a manual pairing hazard when bumping the boto3/botocore pins. Still resolves to 3.7.0
s3fs, SQLAlchemy, pg8000	Keep	Empty Required-by — pyiceberg only pulls them via extras, so dropping them would actually uninstall them (Iceberg S3 FileIO / SqlCatalog would break at runtime). pg8000 deliberately replaces LGPL psycopg2 (#3299)
setuptools==80.10.2	Keep	Guards fs's pkg_resources import against newer setuptools removing it (#4199); fs declares setuptools with no version bound

amber/LICENSE-binary-python updates python-dateutil to the resolved 2.9.0.post0 (it stays installed transitively, so the check_binary_deps.py gate still requires the claim); aiobotocore already claims 3.7.0, which is unchanged by the resolution.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #6108. Follow-up to #6101 / #6103.

How was this PR tested?

• pip install --dry-run --ignore-installed --report without the pins: resolution unchanged except python-dateutil → 2.9.0.post0; aiobotocore/botocore/boto3 stay at their current versions.
• Upgraded the local venv to the resolved versions and ran the existing pyamber suite (pytest -m "not integration") — passes.
• CI's pyamber leg re-resolves from scratch and check_binary_deps.py verifies the LICENSE-binary-python claims.

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Claude Code (claude-fable-5)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• Contributors with relevant context: @xuang7
  You can notify them by mentioning @xuang7 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 70.42%. Comparing base (f722c26) to head (9696754).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #6110      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     70.44%   70.42%   -0.03%     
  Complexity     3404     3404              
============================================
  Files          1142     1142              
  Lines         44876    44876              
  Branches       4955     4955              
============================================
- Hits          31613    31602      -11     
- Misses        11619    11632      +13     
+ Partials       1644     1642       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
agent-service	76.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
amber	66.66% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
computing-unit-managing-service	17.72% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
config-service	52.30% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
file-service	66.80% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
frontend	69.24% <ø> (-0.06%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from ee062a2
notebook-migration-service	78.94% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2
pyamber	91.53% <ø> (ø)
workflow-compiling-service	55.14% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ee062a2

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 8 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main f722c26 benchmarked on this same runner, so the delta is largely free of cross-runner hardware noise. The "7d avg" column still reflects the gh-pages dashboard. Treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

	config	throughput	MB/s	latency	max Δ latest / 7d
🔴	bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	378	0.231	25,425/36,747/36,747 us	🔴 +13.5% / 🔴 +155.9%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	946	0.577	102,629/126,950/126,950 us	🔴 +8.8% / 🔴 +28.1%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,109	0.677	892,772/965,837/965,837 us	⚪ within ±5% / ⚪ within ±5%

Baseline details

Latest main f722c26 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	378 tuples/sec	424 tuples/sec	831.47 tuples/sec	-10.8%	-54.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.231 MB/s	0.259 MB/s	0.507 MB/s	-10.8%	-54.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,425 us	22,395 us	11,844 us	+13.5%	+114.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	36,747 us	36,536 us	14,359 us	+0.6%	+155.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	36,747 us	36,536 us	18,888 us	+0.6%	+94.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	946 tuples/sec	998 tuples/sec	1,089 tuples/sec	-5.2%	-13.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.577 MB/s	0.609 MB/s	0.665 MB/s	-5.3%	-13.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	102,629 us	99,079 us	92,503 us	+3.6%	+10.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	126,950 us	116,732 us	99,121 us	+8.8%	+28.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	126,950 us	116,732 us	112,422 us	+8.8%	+12.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,109 tuples/sec	1,108 tuples/sec	1,117 tuples/sec	+0.1%	-0.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.677 MB/s	0.676 MB/s	0.682 MB/s	+0.1%	-0.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	892,772 us	899,666 us	910,046 us	-0.8%	-1.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	965,837 us	954,393 us	950,716 us	+1.2%	+1.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	965,837 us	954,393 us	985,832 us	+1.2%	-2.0%

Raw CSV

config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,528.85,200,128000,378,0.231,25424.75,36747.48,36747.48
1,100,10,64,20,2114.23,2000,1280000,946,0.577,102628.90,126950.49,126950.49
2,1000,10,64,20,18027.74,20000,12800000,1109,0.677,892772.30,965837.40,965837.40

[Yicong-Huang]

cc @SarahAsad23 for review

[Yicong-Huang]

@aicam @mengw15 and @SarahAsad23 please help on review this. thanks

[SarahAsad23]

LGTM!

[mengw15]

Left one comment on the failing license gate

[aicam]

LGTM!