https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 --- Comment #8 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #7) > Hello Jeremy, > > Here is the review: Thanks for the review :) > > From the spec file: > > How about replacing > > BuildRequires: numactl-devel > BuildRequires: ocl-icd-devel > > by > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(numa) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ocl-icd) Sure that sounds good to me. > > > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ > Comment: maybe add clang in this case, it seems the fedora-review is out of > date. No, it seems I forgot gcc; clang-devel is just needed for headers, since it links against libclang. > > - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_devel_packages Sure, I think this is not strictly needed for OpenCL, but I noticed that the mesa opencl has versioned libs, so we should too. I'm a bit surprised that rpmlint didn't complain, as it complained about cltrace. As a TODO, I might want to make a patch to allow setting a soname for the ocl and cltrace libs. Upstream doesn't want this, but I doubt they'll object to adding an option to cmake. > ... Here's the new files: Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/rocm-opencl.spec SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/rocm-opencl-5.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mystro256/rocm-opencl/build/4593532/ Notes ------ - The COPR review says the install failed, but looks like a mirror issue. I just updated the rocm-comgr package today, and COPR can't find it on its local mirror. - Building on f36 requires the following update because I bumped this package to 5.2.0: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2cee071a16 - I added some logic to allow building the optional test suite, but I haven't enabled it by default, because the code requires disabling security flags. It helps with some HW testing I was doing, but I don't think turning off Fedora's default security compiler flags is a good thing :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component 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
