Bug 2051854
| Summary: | Review Request: oneVPL-intel-gpu - Intel oneVPL GPU Runtime | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Simone Caronni <negativo17> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | airlied, ngompa13, package-review, ppisar, rfontana |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | ngompa13:
fedora-review+
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-11-17 19:07:47 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Simone Caronni
2022-02-08 08:06:05 UTC
Taking this review. > Intel® oneVPL GPU Runtime We don't use (R)/(C)/(TM) or their unicode equivalents: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_trademarks_in_summary_or_description Please drop them on import. Other than that... Review notes: * Packaging complies with the guidelines * Package builds and installs * No serious issues from rpmlint * Licensing is correct and license files are correctly installed PACKAGE APPROVED. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > > Intel® oneVPL GPU Runtime > > We don't use (R)/(C)/(TM) or their unicode equivalents: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_trademarks_in_summary_or_description > > Please drop them on import. Ah! I missed that. I will do. Thanks! (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/oneVPL-intel-gpu Did this have any legal review? there is definitely some possible patented stuff that could be linked to this. Nope, I was not aware sorry. How to trigger a legal review after the package is already available? I'm reopening this for legal review, based on it seems to enable APIs for h264/5 decoding from what I understand of the package. Reverting review state back to "fedora-review?". (In reply to Dave Airlie from comment #7) > I'm reopening this for legal review, based on it seems to enable APIs for > h264/5 decoding from what I understand of the package. As far as I know this thing can't do anything without a functioning driver component, which is being reviewed in bug 1942132 with the encumbered codecs stripped. For some additional protection, we could also add "-DMFX_ENABLE_H264_VIDEO_DECODE=OFF -DMFX_ENABLE_H265_VIDEO_DECODE=OFF -DMFX_ENABLE_VC1_VIDEO_DECODE=OFF -DMFX_ENABLE_H264_VIDEO_ENCODE=OFF -DMFX_ENABLE_H265_VIDEO_ENCODE=OFF" to the cmake option list to forcibly disable those runtime paths entirely. Lifting FE-Legal. |