https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Bug ID: 2090823 Summary: Review Request: rocm-opencl - ROCm OpenCL Runtime Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter: alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxxxxx QA Contact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/rocm-opencl.spec SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/rocm-opencl-5.1.3-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: ROCm OpenCL language runtime. Supports offline and in-process/in-memory compilation. Fedora Account System Username: mystro256 COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mystro256/rocm-opencl/build/4443706/ Notes: - Full disclosure, I am an AMD employee, but this package is not a product of AMD, nor is it any way affiliated with my employment. I am working ROCm Fedora packages purely out of my own interest. - ROCclr is a middleware library that isn't supposed to be shared since there's no ABI/API guarentees. It's only used by two ROCm components: OpenCL and HIP. If you dig through my COPR history, you can see I was working on unbundling ROCclr related bits for HIP, but after working with upstream over email, I think I can put that on hold for now. HIP has a lot of packaging related issues, so I'm thinking to start with OpenCL for now and look into packaging HIP further down the road. There's a thread on the Debian mailing list, as I was working with them to find a mutually viable solution for ROCclr: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ai/2022/05/msg00007.html - I'm not sure what to do with cltrace, as it's more of a library for debugging. I could put it in its own package, or exclude it altogether. Eitherway, I added a soversion to avoid an rpmlint error, but after talking to upstream, they don't want to add this since they don't guarentee ABI. I figure using the major.minor version as the version is pretty safe since patch version bumps (e.g. 5.1.0 to 5.1.3) don't tend to contain breaking changes. - OpenCL 2.2 headers are bundled because it doesn't compile against latest. I think this would be a nice thing to fix, but might take some work and upstream involvement. - 32bit doesn't work, nor is it very valuable. I added an ExclusiveArch based on the kernel support required for rocm-opencl. -- 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=2090823 _______________________________________________ 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
