https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- 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.
- 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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
The gfx subpackages don't pull in the main, so they are missing COPYRIGHT.
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
build_cxxflags might be dropping more than you expected.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
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.
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
See comment about build_cxxflags. The build seemed to use all of my cores but this check failed.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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?
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
No check included. There seems to be some sort of testing available. Should we be running it?