Bug 2332429

Hmm, I wonder how this happened. OpenCL-ICD-Loader is just a plain new package, not mentioned in any of the comps, I certainly didn't expect this :/

One thing we can do (imo) is a mesa change:

- Requires:       ocl-icd%{?_isa}
+ Requires:       ocl-icd%{?_isa} or OpenCL-ICD-Loader%{?_isa}

but I'd say OpenCL-ICD-Loader just shouldn't be pulled in by default by anything, it almost seems like somethings is requiring libOpenCL.so.1 instead of ocl-icd somewhere...

Does anybody have any ideas? I have very limited availability till years end.

(In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #1)
>
> but I'd say OpenCL-ICD-Loader just shouldn't be pulled in by default by
> anything, it almost seems like somethings is requiring libOpenCL.so.1
> instead of ocl-icd somewhere...
> 
> Does anybody have any ideas? I have very limited availability till years end.

It wouldn't surprise me if this is the case, as that's how our dependency generation works.

As I said in the review bug, we need to switch over to a virtual provider system for this, like so in both ocl-icd and this package:

Provides: opencl-icd-loader-impl%{?_isa}
Provides: opencl-icd-loader-impl
Conflicts: opencl-icd-loader-impl

Then Mesa can be adjusted to the following:

Requires: opencl-icd-loader-impl%{?_isa}
Suggests: ocl-icd

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
>
> Then Mesa can be adjusted to the following:
> 
> Requires: opencl-icd-loader-impl%{?_isa}
> Suggests: ocl-icd

Err, the Suggests needs to be arched, so "Suggests: ocl-icd%{?_isa}"

The virtual provider would fix the conflict but I think `OpenCL-ICD-Loader` will still be pulled in as the provider for "libOpenCL.so.1*" (most likely via libavfilter-free). This should work but my understanding from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330385 is that it's unintended.

"Suggests: ocl-icd%{?_isa}" in mesa-libOpenCL might resolve the issue for the Fedora Asahi Remix kiwi image generation as it explicitly installs "mesa-libOpenCL". This won't work for Fedora composes as nothing pulls mesa-libOpenCL in.

I don't see how this can be resolved unless rpm provides priorities for the "libOpenCL.so.1*" dependency. I suspect it prefers "OpenCL-ICD-Loader" over "ocl-icd" based on case sensitive alphabetical sorting.

FEDORA-2025-1d2ba9671c (mesa-25.0.3-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1d2ba9671c

FEDORA-2025-52471ac786 (mesa-25.0.4-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-52471ac786

FEDORA-2025-52471ac786 (mesa-25.0.4-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

(In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #1)
> Hmm, I wonder how this happened. OpenCL-ICD-Loader is just a plain new
> package, not mentioned in any of the comps, I certainly didn't expect this :/
> 
> One thing we can do (imo) is a mesa change:
> 
> - Requires:       ocl-icd%{?_isa}
> + Requires:       ocl-icd%{?_isa} or OpenCL-ICD-Loader%{?_isa}
> 
> but I'd say OpenCL-ICD-Loader just shouldn't be pulled in by default by
> anything, it almost seems like somethings is requiring libOpenCL.so.1
> instead of ocl-icd somewhere...
> 
> Does anybody have any ideas? I have very limited availability till years end.

Well, the Fedora rocm-opencl package recommends OpenCL-ICD-Loader (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocclr/blob/f42/f/rocclr.spec#_126). If I use the RHEL9 repository from https://repo.radeon.com/rocm/ on Fedora 42 and install rocm-opencl-runtime, it pulls in ocl-icd as a dependency instead.

Why is OpenCL-ICD-Loader preferred by the Fedora rocm-opencl package? Shouldn't *all* packages that require or recommend the Loader be adapted to follow what was done in Mesa and use a flexible dependency like (ocl-icd%{?_isa} or OpenCL-ICD-Loader%{?_isa})?