Bug 2151768 - Review Request: oneapi-level-zero - oneAPI Level Zero Specification Headers and Loader
Summary: Review Request: oneapi-level-zero - oneAPI Level Zero Specification Headers a...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vasiliy Glazov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-12-08 05:55 UTC by Luya Tshimbalanga
Modified: 2022-12-13 02:38 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-12-13 02:38:54 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
vascom2: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-08 05:55:22 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05101097-level-zero/level-zero.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05101097-level-zero/level-zero-1.8.8-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: The objective of the oneAPI Level-Zero Application Programming Interface
(API) is to provide direct-to-metal interfaces to offload accelerator 
devices. Its programming interface can be tailored to any device needs 
and can be adapted to support broader set of languages features such as 
function pointers, virtual functions, unified memory,
and I/O capabilities.
Fedora Account System Username:luya

Comment 2 Vasiliy Glazov 2022-12-08 07:56:15 UTC
1. Remove strings
%define debug_package %{nil}
\
	-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release

2. %dir %{_includedir}/level_zero
%{_includedir}/level_zero/*

change to

%{_includedir}/level_zero

3. Change %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
to %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}-libs

4. May be change devel subpackage to libs-devel? Or drop "libs" subpackage and use main name?

Comment 3 František Zatloukal 2022-12-08 08:46:24 UTC
Thanks for going ahead with making the package, I was planning to do that in a bit :) 

Anyhow, when it's ready and in repositories, I'll go ahead and enable level-zero integration in intel-compute-runtime ( https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-compute-runtime/blob/rawhide/f/intel-compute-runtime.spec#_121 ).

Also, how is it on other, non x86 architectures (since we now have Arc dGPUs)? The rest of the Intel stack is far from ideal on those for now, but, did you try it?

And, feel free to add me as comaint to level-zero!

Comment 4 Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-08 09:25:43 UTC
Currently the build failed on non x86 architecture. Once level-zero landed on the repository, I will gladly add you.

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2022-12-08 13:32:55 UTC
Can with give this package name a prefix so that it's more obvious what it is, like "oneapi-level-zero"?

Comment 6 Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-08 16:49:09 UTC
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #2)
> 1. Remove strings
> %define debug_package %{nil}
> \
> 	-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release

Done

> 
> 2. %dir %{_includedir}/level_zero
> %{_includedir}/level_zero/*
> 
> change to
> 
> %{_includedir}/level_zero

Done


> 3. Change %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> to %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}-libs
> 
> 4. May be change devel subpackage to libs-devel? Or drop "libs" subpackage
> and use main name?

I chose the latter due to the easier simplification..

Per request, I renamed level-zero to oneapi-level-zero.

SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05112134-oneapi-level-zero/oneapi-level-zero.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05112134-oneapi-level-zero/oneapi-level-zero-1.8.8-1.fc38.src.rpm

Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2022-12-09 05:44:28 UTC
> Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

This needs to use "%{name}%{?_isa}" here, because the dependency is ISA-dependent.

Comment 9 Vasiliy Glazov 2022-12-09 08:45:03 UTC
Last fix https://github.com/oneapi-src/%{name}
to https://github.com/oneapi-src/%{srcname}

Comment 11 Vasiliy Glazov 2022-12-09 10:18:42 UTC
Again missed %{?_isa}

Comment 13 Neal Gompa 2022-12-10 03:24:52 UTC
> Source:	        %{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz	

This can be simplified to "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz"

Comment 14 Vasiliy Glazov 2022-12-10 06:39:32 UTC
Approved.

But check this warning please
oneapi-level-zero.spec:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2)


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/vascom/2151768-oneapi-level-
     zero/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: %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]: 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: oneapi-level-zero-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          oneapi-level-zero-devel-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          oneapi-level-zero-debuginfo-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          oneapi-level-zero-debugsource-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          oneapi-level-zero-1.8.8-1.fc38.src.rpm
====================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpo3qle2ks')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

oneapi-level-zero-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
oneapi-level-zero.spec:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2)
======= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s ======




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: oneapi-level-zero-debuginfo-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
====================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppc7ahx9a')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s ======





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

oneapi-level-zero-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/oneapi-src/level-zero/archive/v1.8.8.tar.gz#/level-zero-1.8.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3553ae8fa0d2d69c4210a8f3428bd6612bd8bb8a627faf52c3658a01851e66d2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3553ae8fa0d2d69c4210a8f3428bd6612bd8bb8a627faf52c3658a01851e66d2


Requires
--------
oneapi-level-zero (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(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)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

oneapi-level-zero-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libze_loader.so.1()(64bit)
    libze_tracing_layer.so.1()(64bit)
    libze_validation_layer.so.1()(64bit)
    oneapi-level-zero(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libze_loader)

oneapi-level-zero-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

oneapi-level-zero-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
oneapi-level-zero:
    libze_loader.so.1()(64bit)
    libze_tracing_layer.so.1()(64bit)
    libze_validation_layer.so.1()(64bit)
    oneapi-level-zero
    oneapi-level-zero(x86-64)

oneapi-level-zero-devel:
    oneapi-level-zero-devel
    oneapi-level-zero-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(level-zero)
    pkgconfig(libze_loader)

oneapi-level-zero-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libze_loader.so.1.8.0-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libze_tracing_layer.so.1.8.0-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libze_validation_layer.so.1.8.0-1.8.8-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    oneapi-level-zero-debuginfo
    oneapi-level-zero-debuginfo(x86-64)

oneapi-level-zero-debugsource:
    oneapi-level-zero-debugsource
    oneapi-level-zero-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2151768
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 15 Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-10 07:24:05 UTC
Thank you Vasiliy, I will fix the mixed tab space issue when importing the source rpm.

Comment 16 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-12-12 14:34:52 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/oneapi-level-zero

Comment 17 Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-12 17:11:33 UTC
(In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #3)
> Thanks for going ahead with making the package, I was planning to do that in
> a bit :) 
> 
> Anyhow, when it's ready and in repositories, I'll go ahead and enable
> level-zero integration in intel-compute-runtime (
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-compute-runtime/blob/rawhide/f/
> intel-compute-runtime.spec#_121 ).
> 
> Also, how is it on other, non x86 architectures (since we now have Arc
> dGPUs)? The rest of the Intel stack is far from ideal on those for now, but,
> did you try it?
> 
> And, feel free to add me as comaint to level-zero!

Do you have a Fedora account? I am unable to find you on the list.

Comment 18 František Zatloukal 2022-12-12 17:18:29 UTC
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #17)
> Do you have a Fedora account? I am unable to find you on the list.

Yeah, my FAS is frantisekz

Comment 19 Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-13 02:38:08 UTC
(In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #18)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #17)
> > Do you have a Fedora account? I am unable to find you on the list.
> 
> Yeah, my FAS is frantisekz

Done, you have full access.

Comment 20 Luya Tshimbalanga 2022-12-13 02:38:54 UTC
Closing this report now the package landed on the repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.