https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083 --- Comment #5 from Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #3) > 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++/ > > This might be a false finding as I'm not familiar with "toolchain rocm", but > I think this is still valid. rocm uses a clang wrapper. I have added # Redundant BuildRequires:clang17 to make fedora-review happy # clang17 or similar is part of requires for rocm-hip-devel BuildRequires: clang17 > > > - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause ICS AND MIT AND'. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC License", > "MIT License", "GNU General Public License". 2137 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/jon/Reviews/magma/licensecheck.txt > > The trailing AND. > This was really messed up sorry. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > The gfx subpackages don't pull in the main, so they are missing COPYRIGHT. These gfx subpackages have been removed. > > [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > build_cxxflags might be dropping more than you expected. > > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. # hipcc does not support some clang flags Is the justification, this is consistent with the other rocm packages. hipcc will build with gpu targets that do not have some of the flags rpm adds > > Requires: rocm-rpm-macros-modules? > The subpackages don't require the main. > > [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > > Documenting that it is known to require ExclusiveArch. # ROCm is only on x86_64: hipblas, hipsparse are rocm libraries that are only on x86_64 general rocm only works on x86_64 > > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > > See comment about build_cxxflags. The build seemed to use all of my cores > but this check failed. I hade the some experience, i am not sure > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > Not all licenses are shipped. # Remove some files we do not need to similify licenses # GPL, results for cuda rm -rf results/* # ICS, Copy of strlcpy - just use strlcpy sed -i -e '/strlcpy/d' control/Makefile.src sed -i -e '/strlcpy/d' include/magma_auxiliary.h sed -i -e 's@magma_strlcpy@strlcpy@' control/trace.cpp rm control/strlcpy.cpp I did this in prep. The hipify they use is a very old version, i don't know exactly which, that has the sole MIT license. I maintain the current version in fedora. > > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in magma- > gfx90a , magma-gfx942 , magma-gfx1100 , magma-gfx1103 > > The subpackages don't require on the main. > > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > > Should your soname versioning go upstream vs this downstream patch? # For versioning the *.so's # https://bitbucket.org/icl/magma/issues/77/versioning-so Patch0: 0001-Prepare-magma-cmake-for-fedora.patch and later # Add some more gfx's # https://bitbucket.org/icl/magma/issues/76/a-few-new-rocm-gpus sed -i -e 's@1032 1033@1032 1033 1100 1101 1102 1103@' Makefile > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > No check included. There seems to be some sort of testing available. Should > we be running it? Need a gpu to test, no builder has a gpu. I added an optional check of imo the most useful one of the many tests that are built with its output %if %{with test} %check gpu=default %{_vpath_builddir}/testing/testing_sgemm %endif -- 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=2297083 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202297083%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
