[Bug 2241790] New: Review Request: tinygrad - You like pytorch? You like micrograd? You love tinygrad! - package-review

[Bug 2241790] New: Review Request: tinygrad - You like pytorch? You like micrograd? You love tinygrad!

[Bug 2241725] New: Review Request:...

[Bug 2242660] New: Review Request:...

bugzilla＠redhat.com

Monday, 2 October 2023 Mon, 2 Oct '23

12:34 p.m.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241790 Bug ID: 2241790 Summary: Review Request: tinygrad - You like pytorch? You like micrograd? You love tinygrad! Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite(a)emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/tinygrad/fedora... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/tinygrad/fedora... description: tinygrad: For something between PyTorch and karpathy/micrograd. Maintained by tiny corp. This may not be the best deep learning framework, but it is a deep learning framework. Due to its extreme simplicity, it aims to be the easiest framework to add new accelerators to, with support for both inference and training. If XLA is CISC, tinygrad is RISC. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always -- 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=2241790 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

Show replies by date

bugzilla＠redhat.com

Monday, 2 October Mon, 2 Oct

12:42 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 2241790] Review Request: tinygrad - You like pytorch? You like micrograd? You love tinygrad!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241790 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |1011110 (ML-SIG) --- Comment #1 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> --- koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106996204 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011110 [Bug 1011110] Machine Learning SIG - review tracker -- 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=2241790 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

bugzilla＠redhat.com

Sunday, 8 October Sun, 8 Oct

8:25 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 2241790] Review Request: tinygrad - You like pytorch? You like micrograd? You love tinygrad!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241790 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)proton.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mattia.verga(a)proton.me Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |mattia.verga(a)proton.me 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=2241790

bugzilla＠redhat.com

9:14 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 2241790] Review Request: tinygrad - You like pytorch? You like micrograd? You love tinygrad!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241790 --- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)proton.me> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues ====== - This is a python library, not an application, so it MUST be named with a python{,3} prefix https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_librar... - Bonus points: consider using 'pytest -k' rather than multiple pytest invocations ===== MUST items ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 311 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/review/2241790-tinygrad/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 35717 bytes in 3 files. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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. [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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tinygrad-0.7.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm tinygrad-0.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmpb037dbmx')] checks: 31, packages: 2 tinygrad.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary tinygrad tinygrad.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary tinygrad ======= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ======= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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: 31, packages: 1 tinygrad.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary tinygrad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tinygrad/tinygrad/archive/v0.7.0/tinygrad-0.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 03858ecd78484825a91180c19a62081ba1760864f46d7796cde81ea60e07c65d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 03858ecd78484825a91180c19a62081ba1760864f46d7796cde81ea60e07c65d Requires -------- tinygrad (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(networkx) python3.12dist(numpy) python3.12dist(pillow) python3.12dist(pyopencl) python3.12dist(pyyaml) python3.12dist(requests) python3.12dist(tqdm) Provides -------- tinygrad: python3.12dist(tinygrad) python3dist(tinygrad) tinygrad Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241790 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Java, C/C++, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2241790 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

bugzilla＠redhat.com

Monday, 9 October Mon, 9 Oct

6:54 a.m.