[Bug 2297083] New: Review Request: magma - Matrix Algebra on GPU and Multi-core Architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Bug ID: 2297083 Summary: Review Request: magma - Matrix Algebra on GPU and Multi-core Architectures Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: trix@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/magma.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Matrix Algebra on GPU and Multi-core Architectures (MAGMA) is a collection of next-generation linear algebra libraries for heterogeneous computing. The MAGMA package supports interfaces for current linear algebra packages and standards (e.g., LAPACK and BLAS) to enable computational scientists to easily port any linear algebra–reliant software component to heterogeneous computing systems. MAGMA enables applications to fully exploit the power of current hybrid systems of many-core CPUs and multi-GPUs/coprocessors to deliver the fastest possible time to accurate solutions within given energy constraints.
Magma is used in python-torch. Here is how it will be used. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-torch/blob/rawhide/f/python-torch....
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://icl.utk.edu/magma/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7722536 (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=2297083
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathansteffan@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jonathansteffan@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- 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 'BSD-3-Clause ICS AND MIT AND'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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 [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: %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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: 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 [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx90a-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx942-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx1100-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx1103-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-devel-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debugsource-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-2.8.0-1.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/tmp08rz19we')] checks: 32, packages: 9
magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for W7900 magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for gfx1103 (experimental) magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for MI200 magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for MI300 magma.src: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.src: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.src: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma.src: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 28 warnings, 122 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 16.1 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: magma-gfx1103-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx942-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx90a-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-gfx1100-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.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/tmplp09ey0x')] checks: 32, packages: 5
magma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1100-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1100-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1103-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1103-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx90a-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx90a-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx942-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx942-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 60 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.3 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: 12
magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for MI300 magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for MI200 magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for W7900 magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized magma for gfx1103 (experimental) magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx90a-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx90a-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1103-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1103-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx942.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx90a.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1100-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1100-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1100.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx942-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx942-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause ICS magma-gfx1103.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT AND 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 34 warnings, 168 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 9.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/icl/magma/get/06368d9b817710566f654b96114549216f8cee70... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0272b0b77aa1424b25b5fffdcba915620898a554e5329299396bb453f67ecce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0272b0b77aa1424b25b5fffdcba915620898a554e5329299396bb453f67ecce
Requires -------- magma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rocm-rpm-macros-modules rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-gfx90a (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-gfx942 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-gfx1100 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-gfx1103 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma(x86-64) magma-gfx1100(x86-64) magma-gfx1103(x86-64) magma-gfx90a(x86-64) magma-gfx942(x86-64)
magma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
magma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- magma: libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma magma(x86-64)
magma-gfx90a: libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma-gfx90a magma-gfx90a(x86-64)
magma-gfx942: libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma-gfx942 magma-gfx942(x86-64)
magma-gfx1100: libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma-gfx1100 magma-gfx1100(x86-64)
magma-gfx1103: libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma-gfx1103 magma-gfx1103(x86-64)
magma-devel: magma-devel magma-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(magma)
magma-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmagma.so.2.8.0-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) magma-debuginfo magma-debuginfo(x86-64)
magma-debugsource: magma-debugsource magma-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Perl, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
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?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #4 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/magma.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
An update to address review issues.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #5 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- (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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- 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++/
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: 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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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", "MIT License". 1954 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/magma/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-devel-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debugsource-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-2.8.0-1.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/tmp75ri9b7n')] checks: 32, packages: 5
magma.spec:66: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(hipify) magma.src: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.src: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.src: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings, 120 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 16.5 s =========
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: magma-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.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/tmplaudt4u5')] checks: 32, packages: 1
========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 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
magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 134 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 8.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/icl/magma/get/06368d9b817710566f654b96114549216f8cee70... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0272b0b77aa1424b25b5fffdcba915620898a554e5329299396bb453f67ecce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0272b0b77aa1424b25b5fffdcba915620898a554e5329299396bb453f67ecce
Requires -------- magma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rocm-rpm-macros-modules rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma(x86-64)
magma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
magma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- magma: bundled(hipify) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma magma(x86-64)
magma-devel: magma-devel magma-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(magma)
magma-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmagma.so.2.8.0-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) magma-debuginfo magma-debuginfo(x86-64)
magma-debugsource: magma-debugsource magma-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Copy buffer fail:
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
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++/
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: 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 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", "MIT License". 1954 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/magma/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [!]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-devel-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-debugsource-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm magma-2.8.0-1.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/tmp75ri9b7n')] checks: 32, packages: 5
magma.spec:66: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(hipify) magma.src: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.src: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.src: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings, 120 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 16.5 s =========
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: magma-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.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/tmplaudt4u5')] checks: 32, packages: 1
========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 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
magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('coprocessors', '%description -l en_US coprocessors -> co processors, co-processors, microprocessors') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('factorizations', '%description -l en_US factorizations -> factorization, factorization s, categorizations') magma.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eigen', '%description -l en_US eigen -> exigent') magma.x86_64: W: no-documentation magma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 134 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 8.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/icl/magma/get/06368d9b817710566f654b96114549216f8cee70... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0272b0b77aa1424b25b5fffdcba915620898a554e5329299396bb453f67ecce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0272b0b77aa1424b25b5fffdcba915620898a554e5329299396bb453f67ecce
Requires -------- magma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhipblas.so.2()(64bit) libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rocm-rpm-macros-modules rtld(GNU_HASH)
magma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma(x86-64)
magma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
magma-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- magma: bundled(hipify) libmagma.so.2.8.0()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0()(64bit) magma magma(x86-64)
magma-devel: magma-devel magma-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(magma)
magma-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmagma.so.2.8.0-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmagma_sparse.so.2.8.0-2.8.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) magma-debuginfo magma-debuginfo(x86-64)
magma-debugsource: magma-debugsource magma-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n magma-2.8.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
--- Comment #8 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++/
BRs specific clang. This is fine.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
Missed this in previous output. This is fine.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Please add a best guess for the version of bundled(hipify).
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
False positive. This is fine.
Once you update the Provides for the bundled(hipify) to have a best-guess version, this is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/magma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(trix@redhat.com)
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- @trix Please update your spec to include versioning for the bundled Provides. I just peeked at rawhide and it's still unversioned.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Tom.Rix@amd.com Flags|needinfo?(trix@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #11 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/magma/c/e1f72612e830e5acd6d33f56f40320c18...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jonathansteffan@g | |mail.com)
--- Comment #12 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- (In reply to Tom.Rix from comment #11)
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/magma/c/ e1f72612e830e5acd6d33f56f40320c18e64b574?branch=rawhide
Is this change sufficient ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jonathansteffan@g | |mail.com) |
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- LGTM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-01-03 20:21:13
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com