Bug 2325954

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8255241
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2325954-hipfort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08255241-hipfort/fedora-review/review.txt

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.

I am assuming that this is a false positive.

hipfort.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhipfort-amdgcn.so.0.4.0 /lib64/libm.so.6       
hipfort.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhipfort-amdgcn.so.0.4.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1

I would expect wrapper around math libraries to use -lm and who doesn't use -lgcc

Please drop:
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
> %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}
> %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}

These are used by the devel package, there's no need for the main package to own them.
These directories are actually already owned by the devel package.

This package is APPROVED

Full review and notes below.


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]: 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", "MIT License". 96 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/fedora-
     review/2325954-hipfort/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[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.
[!]: 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 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 9967 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).
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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: hipfort-6.2.4-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          hipfort-devel-6.2.4-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          hipfort-6.2.4-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpswgh1dtr')]
checks: 32, packages: 3
 
hipfort.src: E: spelling-error ('Fortran', 'Summary(en_US) Fortran -> FORTRAN, Fort ran, Fort-ran')
hipfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Fortran', 'Summary(en_US) Fortran -> FORTRAN, Fort ran, Fort-ran')
hipfort.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hipfc
hipfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 29 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s
 
 
 
 
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: hipfort-debuginfo-6.2.4-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp9dowlhmj')]
checks: 32, packages: 1
 
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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-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: 3
 
hipfort.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhipfort-amdgcn.so.0.4.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
hipfort.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhipfort-amdgcn.so.0.4.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
hipfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Fortran', 'Summary(en_US) Fortran -> FORTRAN, Fort ran, Fort-ran')
hipfort.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hipfc
hipfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 30 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.4 s
 
 
 
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ROCm/hipfort/archive/rocm-6.2.4.tar.gz#/hipfort-6.2.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 32daa4ee52c2d44790bff7a7ddde9d572e4785b2f54766a5e45d10228da0534b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32daa4ee52c2d44790bff7a7ddde9d572e4785b2f54766a5e45d10228da0534b
 
 
Requires
--------
hipfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit)
    libhipblas.so.2()(64bit)
    libhipfft.so.0()(64bit)
    libhipsolver.so.0()(64bit)
    libhipsparse.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
 
hipfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hipfort(x86-64)
    libhipfort-amdgcn.so.0.4.0()(64bit)
 
 
 
Provides
--------
hipfort:
    hipfort
    hipfort(x86-64)
    libhipfort-amdgcn.so.0.4.0()(64bit)
 
hipfort-devel:
    hipfort-devel
    hipfort-devel(x86-64)
 
 
 
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2325954
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Java, fonts, Python, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

========== NOTES:

There's a couple things that rpmlint is mad about but I don't see any reason to block on those as in review I understand why they are there. Also, the one demarcation of "!" is about x86_64 ExclusiveArch which is imposed by upstream.

Adam or Jeremy,
The bz needs to be assigned to someone for the fedpkg request-repos to be approved.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/70901

Could either of you take the bz ?

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hipfort

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days