https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261201 --- Comment #5 from Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/miopen.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/miopen-6.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Most of the issues are addressed. The db's. I am not sure what you saying. can we not use a db as-is ? For patch documenting, I have added comments to several issues i have opened in the upstream project. Generally this project assumes it is built from the amd rpms and has a lot of rough edges the older rocm projects have smoothed off. So I feel the main problem is the upstream needs to try to build on a second install location and they will understand and fix their problems. This issue is an example of that https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen/issues/2734 -- 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=2261201 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202261201%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
