https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044664 --- Comment #3 from Felix Schwarz <fschwarz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I hoped that somebody more familiar with the whole llvm/gpu stack could review this. If nobody steps up I think I'll have to do it. Naming: In F35 we have rocm-runtime, rocm-smi, and rocminfo. Therefore I suggest using "rocm-device-libs" as a package name. This also matches the naming in Arch (https://github.com/rocm-arch/rocm-arch/tree/master/rocm-device-libs) and Debian (https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team/rocm-device-libs). I noticed that both Debian and Arch use rocm-cmake. Any idea if we need this in Fedora as well? I can't test the package on its own but you also submitted ROCm-CompilerSupport in bug 2045955 so I guess this package works. As for /usr/lib vs. /usr/lib64 I don't have a strong opinion. Debian puts the bitcode in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ if I'm not mistaken. Tom mentioned libclc with /usr/lib64 while Vít seemed to prefer(?) /usr/lib. Both arguments work for so... If you could fix the naming issue I could do a formal review to move this forward. Thank you for taking the time to package the ROCm stack for Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044664 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
