Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920309 --- Comment #2 from Rob Clark <rclark@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'll review it. > > But first of all I have a questions. > > * Could you please explain the current situation with open OpenCL > implementations in drivers? > > * So far I found this project, opencl-utils (available in Fedora), and pocl > ( http://pocl.sourceforge.net/ ). Is it possible to build, link and execute > an OpenCL program with some of these? I mean w/o waiting for open > videodrivers to catch up. I fully realize that this wouldn't be fast w/o GPU > help but anyway - is it possible? fwiw, Dave Airlie was enabling mesa opencl support in rawhide, and I believe he had some plans to use ocl-icd with the mesa ocl drivers. > Thanks in advance! Now let's do the official part. > > REVIEW: > > Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable > > + rpmlint is almost silent (the only warning may be safely ignored) > > > sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/ocl-icd-* > ../SRPMS/ocl-icd-2.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm > ocl-icd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ocl-icd-20130309.tar.bz2 > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: > > > + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. > + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the > Licensing Guidelines. > > - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. > I think it's 2-clause BSD, not MIT: > > * > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause_license_.28. > 22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29 > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD > > So correct licensing tag is BSD. > > - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST BE > included in %doc. Please mark it as %doc. > > + The spec file is written in American English. > + The spec file for the package is legible. > > - I don't know how to regenerate tarball used for building a package. Please > add to the spec-file's header something like this: > > * http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/b43-tools.git/tree/b43-tools.spec#n15 fwiw, I've made (I think) all the other updates except this one, because I was not entirely sure what to do. I used libdrm.spec as a template, but I'm not entirely sure what triggers running the make-git-snapshot.sh script. updated spec file at same location: http://people.freedesktop.org/~robclark/rpmbuild/ocl-icd/ocl-icd.spec BR, -R > + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one primary architecture. > + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. > 0 No need to handle locales. > + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's > default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. > + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. > > - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. You forgot to mark > "%{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd" as %dir in the devel sub-package's %files section. > So it should look like this: > > %files devel > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %{_includedir}/ocl_icd.h > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ocl-icd.pc > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/OpenCL.pc > %{_libdir}/libOpenCL.so > %dir %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd > %dir %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd/examples > %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd/examples/ocl_icd_bindings.c > %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd/examples/ocl_icd_loader.map > > + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files > listings. > + Permissions on files are set properly. > + The package consistently uses macros. > + The package contains code, or permissible content. > 0 No extremely large documentation files. > + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the > application. > + Header files are stored in a -devel package. > 0 No static libraries. > + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary > runtime requirement added. > + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a > -devel package. > > - The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned > dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. Note %{?_isa} > additional tag. > > + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. > 0 Not a GUI application. > + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. > > > > So here is a summary (with few more small proposals): > > * Fix Licence field. > * Add COPYING as %doc > * Add a description of how to regenerate tarball used for building > * Add missing unowned directory in *-devel > * Add _isa to the dependency on the main package (in the devel sub-package). > * You may drop %defattr(-,root,root,-) - it's no longer needed since RHEL5 / > Fedora 6. > * Regarding this - "autoreconf -v --install || exit 1". You'd better use > autoreconf -ivf (note "f" switch). > > I'm looking forward to hearing from you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZV0Kbq41l1&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review