https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217097 --- Comment #4 from Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> --- My opinion on the naming is not a strong opinion, we can keep moving this review forward. This package does seem newer upstream so it has some quirks. The one that jumps out at me is the *64 suffix, is that really needed ? I know it would be difficult to chase all the lib uses now, but it would be nice if the library name was something like librocmsmi.so. instead of librocm_smi64.so. how stable is the versioning ? will the so.1.0 hold when rocm 6.0 comes out or would it be better to have a so.5.5.0, so.6.0.0 ? Here is a warning cleanup that is a nice to have https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/rocm_smi_lib/pull/123 There were a couple of other warnings on the build that also looked fine -- 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=2217097 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217097%23c4 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
