8:02 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
Bug ID: 2250072
Summary: Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: trix(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipblas.spec
SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipblas-5.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
hipBLAS is a Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms (BLAS) marshalling
library, with multiple supported backends. It sits between the
application and a 'worker' BLAS library, marshalling inputs into
the backend library and marshalling results back to the
application. hipBLAS exports an interface that does not require
the client to change, regardless of the chosen backend. Currently,
hipBLAS supports rocBLAS and cuBLAS as backends.
Reproducible: Always
--
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=2250072
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
8:03 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2250072] Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
Tom Rix <trix(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com,
| |rocm-packagers-sig(a)lists.fe
| |doraproject.org
Flags| |fedora-review?
--
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=2250072
8:12 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2250072] Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |https://github.com/ROCmSoft
| |warePlatform/%{upstreamname
| |}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6647727
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
--
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=2250072
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
12:18 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2250072] Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
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=2250072
7:43 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2250072] Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com> ---
approved
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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++/
Ignored
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8,
/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11
Fixed in the macros package
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 11672 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: hipblas-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
hipblas-devel-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
hipblas-debuginfo-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
hipblas-debugsource-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
hipblas-5.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpq03_e8hu')]
checks: 31, packages: 5
hipblas.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hipblas-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-config-version.cmake
/usr/lib64/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-config-version.cmake
hipblas-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-targets.cmake
/usr/lib64/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/hipblas/hipblas-targets.cmake
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.5 s
--
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=2250072
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
8:22 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2250072] Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hipblas
--
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=2250072
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
1:28 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2250072] Review Request: hipblas - HIP wrapper for ROCm BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250072
Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed| |2023-11-28 19:28:23
--
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=2250072
170
days inactive
182
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
6 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com