https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Bug ID: 2316537 Summary: Review Request: hiprt - HIP Raytracing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: Tom.Rix@amd.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.src.rpm
HIP RT is a ray tracing library for HIP, making it easy to write ray-tracing applications in HIP. The APIs and library are designed to be minimal, lower level, and simple to use and integrate into any existing HIP applications.
Tested on F40 with 780M/gfx1103 and ToT blender 4.4 alpha and secret deer example.
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |luya@fedoraproject.org, | |rocm-packagers-sig@lists.fe | |doraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net
--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Taking it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Quick review:
Name: hiprt Version: 2.4.6b6daf9 Release: %autorelease
According to https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/autorelease.html, use the following for extraver case:
Version: 2.4 Release: %autorelease -e 6b6daf9
Set ExclusiveArch: x86_64 as rocm series lacks support for both aarch64 and ppc64.
%if %{with debug} %cmake_build --config DEBUG %else %cmake_build --config DELEASE %endif
Typing error for "DELEASE", it should be "RELEASE"
When rebuilding the SRPM through COPR, conflicts occurred with rocm-hip-devel on other releases aside Fedora 40: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/designsuite/blender/build/8109379/ It is not a problem tough for the current spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- 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++/ - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND AND MIT AND NCSA'. Remove the extra 'AND' in License line.
===== 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 -The build succeeds on Fedora 40.
[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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License and/or University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/hiprt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Autochangelog used [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Source [x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: hiprt-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hiprt-devel-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hiprt-debuginfo-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hiprt-debugsource-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hiprt-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpq0703xoo')] checks: 32, packages: 5
hiprt.x86_64: W: no-documentation hiprt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation hiprt.src: W: invalid-license AND MIT hiprt.x86_64: W: invalid-license AND MIT hiprt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license AND MIT hiprt-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license AND MIT hiprt-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license AND MIT 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hiprt-debuginfo-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmplrpuqpe9')] checks: 32, packages: 1
hiprt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license AND MIT 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hiprt". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hiprt-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hiprt-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hiprt-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 checks: 32, packages: 4
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/HIPRT/archive/refs/tags/2.4.6b6d... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f06e7126813e05a4951181816f8ce71620c9cc68ebeafd20d1a81b3edaa68da CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f06e7126813e05a4951181816f8ce71620c9cc68ebeafd20d1a81b3edaa68da
Requires -------- hiprt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
hiprt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hiprt(x86-64) libhiprt64.so.2.4.6b6daf9()(64bit)
hiprt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
hiprt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- hiprt: hiprt hiprt(x86-64) libhiprt64.so.2.4.6b6daf9()(64bit)
hiprt-devel: hiprt-devel hiprt-devel(x86-64)
hiprt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hiprt-debuginfo hiprt-debuginfo(x86-64) libhiprt64.so.2.4.6b6daf9-2.4.6b6daf9-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
hiprt-debugsource: hiprt-debugsource hiprt-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name hiprt --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-40-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Perl, R, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/GPUOpen- | |LibrariesAndSDKs/%{upstream | |name}
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8110333 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #5 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- According to the build from comment #4,failure on both F39 and Rawhide occurred at that line:
``` + install --mode=644 'scripts/bitcodes/*.bc' /builddir/build/BUILD/hiprt-2.4.6b6daf9-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64 install: cannot stat 'scripts/bitcodes/*.bc': No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Aj9YBb (%install) ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #6 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt-2.4.6b6daf9-1.6b6daf9.fc42.src.rpm
Fixed issues, rawhide's HIP is working again, so it builds now. Is working on pre rawhide necessary ? It's use in blender depends on changes in ToT/4.4.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Follow this guideline for the versioning: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/autorelease.html#exampes It should be "hiprt-2.4-1.6b6daf9.fc42". I personally fail to understand why HIPRT team uses the confusing versioning. Once fixed, we can set the positive review.
Rawhide will be the focus and we can address pre-rawhide afterward.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #8 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt-2.4-1.6b6daf9.fc42.src.rpm
Here is the corrected version spec/srpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2052674 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2052674&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8110333 to 8155866
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8155866 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #11 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Almost there. Follow this last highlighted step for the approval:
- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Based on the build from comment #10 for Rawhide:
BuildRequires: gcc-c++ BuildRequires: clang18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #12 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt-2.4-1.6b6daf9.fc42.src.rpm
For the addition of clang, which i believe is a false positive. clang comes from comgr-devel -> clang-devel -> clang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2052731 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2052731&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8155866 to 8157180
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8157180 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- (In reply to Tom.Rix from comment #12)
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hiprt-2.4-1.6b6daf9.fc42.src.rpm
For the addition of clang, which i believe is a false positive. clang comes from comgr-devel -> clang-devel -> clang
Yes, it is indeed a false positive upon verification. Maybe filing a bug report to rpmlint to resolve that particular issue. Back to the review, one small details is to add a comment for each patch according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatu... preferably after importing the source rpm. However, based on the criteria adhering to the packaging guideline, this package is ready for submission in the repository.
APPROVED!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hiprt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316537
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2024-11-05 13:09:59
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com