SRPM: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/CLTune-2.7.0-1.20221121git0bbf787.fc38.src.rpm SPEC: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/CLTune.spec FAS: trix Description: CLTune is a C++ library which can be used to automatically tune your OpenCL and CUDA kernels. The only thing you'll need to provide is a tuneable kernel and a list of allowed parameters and values. For example, if you would perform loop unrolling or local memory tiling through a pre-processor define, just remove the define from your kernel code, pass the kernel to CLTune and tell it what the name of your parameter(s) are and what values you want to try. CLTune will take care of the rest: it will iterate over all possible permutations, test them, and report the best combination.
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Is there a reason for placing LICENSE and README.md where they are? Ordinarily, those files would not be copied to %{_datadir}, but instead passed to the %license and %doc macros, respectively. - Could you add a note in the spec file about your upstream pull request? I assume that contains all 3 patches, correct? - I note that the tests are not run by default. Are they not passing at the moment? - The pkgconfig file has an incorrect libdir on 64-bit systems: libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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", "Apache License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0". 21 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 CLTune-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 4 CLTune-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/CNugteren/CLTune/archive/0bbf78789b3a52677453128755f9c1ab3051c250/CLTune-0bbf787.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2570329de3374faea73612519a3c24f85f561a1e73157d1b9d1480209f435987 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2570329de3374faea73612519a3c24f85f561a1e73157d1b9d1480209f435987 Requires -------- CLTune (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) CLTune-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config CLTune(x86-64) libcltune.so.2()(64bit) ocl-icd-devel(x86-64) CLTune-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): CLTune-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- CLTune: CLTune CLTune(x86-64) libcltune.so.2()(64bit) CLTune-devel: CLTune-devel CLTune-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(cltune) CLTune-debuginfo: CLTune-debuginfo CLTune-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libcltune.so.2.7.0-2.7.0-1.20221121git0bbf787.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) CLTune-debugsource: CLTune-debugsource CLTune-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2151654 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, SugarActivity, Ruby, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
SPEC: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/CLTune.spec SRPM: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/CLTune-2.7.0-2.20221121git0bbf787.fc38.src.rpm * Thu Dec 8 2022 Tom Rix <trix> - 2.7.0-2.20221121git0bbf787 - Package review changes - Use doc, license macros - comment patches pull location - default checking on fedora checking depends on pocl and is not on epel, fixed now. The pkgconfig seems like it is in the correct location. can you suggest how the line needs to change ?
(In reply to Tom Rix from comment #3) > The pkgconfig seems like it is in the correct location. > can you suggest how the line needs to change ? It is in the correct location. I meant that it contains an incorrect line, namely this one: libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib On a 64-bit system, that should read: libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib64 It's not a big deal. I just pointed it out since there was a recent thread on fedora-devel-list about incorrect libdir entries in pkgconfig files: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/P2N35UMQVEXPILAF47RQB53MWRV2GM3J/#RCTH7JRFUOFGVWWGRD4LTEZRFY5JJEX7 It's such a minor issue that I won't hold up the review for it, but it would be great if you could arrange for that line to be fixed on 64-bit systems. This package is APPROVED.
Package was never imported. The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval. Let us know if you're still interested in this package.
Sorry I forgot about this. When I have time I will resubmit.