Spec URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake.spec SRPM URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake-5.5.1-1.fc38.src.rpm COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tflink/rocm-packaging/build/5999442/ Description: rocm-cmake is a collection of CMake modules for common build and development tasks within the ROCm project. It is therefore a build dependency for many of the libraries that comprise the ROCm platform. Fedora Account System Username: tflink
CC-ing myself. I'll take it in a few days if someone doesn't beat me to it. Is there any rpmlint output? Does your copr have fedora-review enabled? Or is the plugin buggy again? Please enable and rebuild if it's not enabled. > %{_docdir}/rocm-cmake/LICENSE This can be excluded as it's duplicated by the license macro.
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #1) > Is there any rpmlint output? Does your copr have fedora-review enabled? Or > is the plugin buggy again? Please enable and rebuild if it's not enabled. The copr is supposed to have fedora-review enabled and there's a link to review.txt but I don't see the output. rpmlint run on my local machine is as follows: :$ rpmlint rocm-cmake-5.5.1-2.fc38.src.rpm results_rocm-cmake/5.5.1/2.fc38/rocm-cmake- 5.5.1-2.fc38.noarch.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 checks: 31, packages: 2 rocm-cmake.src: W: strange-permission rocm-cmake.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s I cannot figure out how to change the permissions on the spec file in the srpm. Any tips here are certainly welcome. > > %{_docdir}/rocm-cmake/LICENSE > > This can be excluded as it's duplicated by the license macro. This should be fixed now Spec URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake.spec SRPM URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake-5.5.1-2.fc38.src.rpm COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tflink/rocm-packaging/build/5999550/
I found a typo in the specfile's source URL, COPR is showing the review now since fedora-review can actually run. Spec URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake.spec SRPM URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake-5.5.1-3.fc38.src.rpm COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tflink/rocm-packaging/build/5999590/
> cannot figure out how to change the permissions on the spec file in the srpm. Any tips here are certainly welcome. The spec file you've written just has odd permissions. Do: chmod 644 rocm-cmake.spec Then regenerate the srpm and the file will be good. I suggest to also run rpmlint on the spec file itself locally before you generate the srpm to find obvious issues. Let me do a quick review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [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". 112 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/rocm-cmake/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/rocm [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rocm > See NOTES at bottom [-]: 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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package > I don't think this is applicable, since it's just cmake modules, just like "extra-cmake-modules" or similiar [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. [x]: 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]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > /usr/share/rocm is orphaned, see NOTES at bottom [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: > This is probably a bug in autorelease [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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. > It looks like the permission issue was already fixed ===== NOTES ===== The only issue is that there's no owner of %{_datadir}/rocm I suggest either: - if it will be used by other future ROCm packages: make a sub-package called "rocm-filesystem" to own this OR - if it will be the only user of this directory: just change "%{_datadir}/rocm/cmake" in %files to "%{_datadir}/rocm"
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #5) <snip> > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > > > It looks like the permission issue was already fixed Yeah, it was an artifact of rpmautospec being run on my local system. I posted more details on devel list if you're interested in the details > ===== NOTES ===== > > The only issue is that there's no owner of %{_datadir}/rocm > I suggest either: > - if it will be used by other future ROCm packages: make a sub-package > called "rocm-filesystem" to own this > OR > - if it will be the only user of this directory: just change > "%{_datadir}/rocm/cmake" in %files to "%{_datadir}/rocm" I assumed that something else was using %{_datadir}/rocm and purposely didn't claim it in this package but didn't think about leaving the parent unowned. I installed AMD's packages on a VM and the only thing that showed up in /opt/rocm/share/rocm is cmake. From this, I infer that nothing else in the stack uses %{_datadir}/rocm I've changed the %files section so that %{_datadir}/rocm is claimed. If it turns out that something else really does use that dir, we can revisit and change the package at that time. Spec URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake.spec SRPM URL: https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/rocm-cmake/rocm-cmake-5.5.1-4.fc39.src.rpm COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tflink/rocm-packaging/build/6018432/
> Yeah, it was an artifact of rpmautospec being run on my local system Yeah I haven't had time to investigate how to use that yet. Call me old fashioned :) > I've changed the %files section so that %{_datadir}/rocm is claimed. If it turns out that something else really does use that dir, we can revisit and change the package at that time. Sounds good! Feel free to loop me in on any future ROCm package reviews. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-cmake
rocm-cmake built successfully in rawhide, closing https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2210624