[Bug 2267261] New: Review Request: fbgemm - Facebook General Matrix-Matrix Multiplication library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Bug ID: 2267261 Summary: Review Request: fbgemm - Facebook General Matrix-Matrix Multiplication library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aekoroglu@linux.intel.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r... SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r...
Description: FBGEMM (Facebook GEneral Matrix Multiplication) is a low-precision, high performance matrix-matrix multiplications and convolution library for server-side inference.
The library provides efficient low-precision general matrix multiplication for small batch sizes and support for accuracy-loss minimizing techniques such as row-wise quantization and outlier-aware quantization. FBGEMM also exploits fusion opportunities in order to overcome the unique challenges of matrix multiplication at lower precision with bandwidth-bound operations.
FBGEMM is used as a backend of Caffe2 and PyTorch quantized operators for x86 machines.
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/pytorch/ | |%{name}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7095171 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jeremy@jcline.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jeremy@jcline.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Hi,
This looks very nearly there, there's just one small issue with the description on fbgemm-devel. If you want to share the description between fbgemm and fbgemm-devel you need to define it. I think you need to do something like:
%global _description %{expand:
Write your description here.
You can then use _description to reference it later. }
%description %{_description}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
--- Comment #3 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com --- Hello again, sorry for late response
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r... SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-r...
PS: I'm aware that fbgemm has a new version (0.7.0) but I found interesting cpu instruction issue on testing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2032208 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2032208&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7095171 to 7427021
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7427021 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jeremy@jcline.org | |)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jeremy@jcline.org |fedora-review+ |) |
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Ah, thanks for the ping.
- The latest version isn't packaged, but as you indicated you're aware of it and there's a problem, I think that's okay. - The patch is fairly self-explanatory, but it would be nice to add a little comment above it in the specfile explaining what it's there for.
Approved!
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 497 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/reviews/2267261-fbgemm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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 6072 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: fbgemm-0.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm fbgemm-devel-0.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm fbgemm-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm fbgemm-debugsource-0.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm fbgemm-0.6.0-1.fc41.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/tmpmqr6whra')] checks: 32, packages: 5
fbgemm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ========================================================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ===========================================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fbgemm-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.fc41.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/tmpl5mxhhr6')] checks: 32, packages: 1
=========================================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ===========================================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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
fbgemm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pytorch/fbgemm/archive/v0.6.0/fbgemm-0.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9231d40a32095b9979205f986a4dae88ac9e648984361c2515538c4f009b0e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9231d40a32095b9979205f986a4dae88ac9e648984361c2515538c4f009b0e8
Requires -------- fbgemm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasmjit.so.0.0.20231007()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcpuinfo.so.23.11.04()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(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_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
fbgemm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) fbgemm(x86-64) libfbgemm.so.1()(64bit)
fbgemm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
fbgemm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- fbgemm: fbgemm fbgemm(x86-64) libfbgemm.so.1()(64bit)
fbgemm-devel: cmake(fbgemmLibrary) cmake(fbgemmlibrary) fbgemm-devel fbgemm-devel(x86-64)
fbgemm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fbgemm-debuginfo fbgemm-debuginfo(x86-64) libfbgemm.so.0.1-0.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
fbgemm-debugsource: fbgemm-debugsource fbgemm-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2267261 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Python, PHP, fonts, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fbgemm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267261
Ali Erdinc Koroglu aekoroglu@linux.intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2024-07-08 17:44:35
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com