Bug 2412016

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9762678
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2412016-rocm-origami/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09762678-rocm-origami/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.

Some concerns:
- I assume rocm doesn't provide a component level tarball for this like the other libs? It is what it is, but I was confused why they didn't since they do have repo available (https://github.com/ROCm/origami)
- rpmlint complains that you misspelt "toolset" as it's actually 2 words not one
- did you notify upstream about the scope problem? I don't see any bug report link
- that "NOT ROCM_FOUND" sed patch you did is concerning, but not a blocker... I worked on other rocm components and it should "find" ROCM just fine when rocm-cmake is installed.
- URL is not valid, either use https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/tree/develop/shared/origami, or I would prefer personally https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries for simplicity
- The package doesn't contain a LICENSE, the develop branch does have it though:
https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/commit/ea4d3de11d97a624d9348ee27e30be6346d6da10
Please don't forget to add this to %license later. You could cherrypick now, as it might resolve some of the ROCM_FOUND issues I mentioned above, or even a partial diff to add the file, so you don't forget it later

The rest of the review is fine, just address the above and I can approve, nothing is really a blocker per-say, excluding the invalid URL issue (most are SHOULD issues)

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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/rocm-origami/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 2974 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> see comment above
[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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
> See comment above
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-origami.spec
SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-origami-7.1.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

For the update.

>> - I assume rocm doesn't provide a component level tarball for this like the other libs? It is what it is, but I was 
>> confused why they didn't since they do have repo available (https://github.com/ROCm/origami)

# Use fetch.sh to extract origami from rocm-libraries
# There is no upstream origami project, it is part of the new ROCm
# monorepo rocm-libraries.  This monorepo is expected to replace the upstream
# locations its libraries. At this time there is only a single tarball
# This PR starts the process to address that
# https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/pull/2494
Source1:    fetch.sh

>> - rpmlint complains that you misspelt "toolset" as it's actually 2 words not one

into a tool set for **GEMM solution selection and

>> - did you notify upstream about the scope problem? I don't see any bug report link

# hipblaslt from rocm-libraries does not use cmake to find origami
# https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/issues/2422
# So they would not have run into this issue.
Patch1:     0001-rocm-origami-remove-scope-for-variables.patch

>> - that "NOT ROCM_FOUND" sed patch you did is concerning, but not a blocker... I worked on other rocm components 
>> and it should "find" ROCM just fine when rocm-cmake is installed.

Nothing done for this.

>> - URL is not valid, either use https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/tree/develop/shared/origami, 
>> or I would prefer personally https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries for simplicity

URL:        https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries

>> - The package doesn't contain a LICENSE, the develop branch does have it though:
>> https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/commit/ea4d3de11d97a624d9348ee27e30be6346d6da10
>> Please don't forget to add this to %license later. You could cherrypick now, as it might resolve some of the 
>> ROCM_FOUND issues I mentioned above, or even a partial diff to add the file, so you don't forget it later

# License file is not in the 7.1.0 tag, but is here
Source2:    https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries/tree/develop/shared/origami/LICENSE.md
..

%prep
%autosetup -p3 -n %{upstreamname}-rocm-%{version}

# The license file
cp %{SOURCE2} .

..
%files
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE.md

Created attachment 2113372 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9762678 to 9779382

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9779382
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2412016-rocm-origami/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09779382-rocm-origami/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rocm-origami/diff.txt
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Looks fine, thank you.

We should probably should fix the not found issue, but it's a workable little sed command for now.

Approved

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-origami