Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo-0.5.0%5egit20230824.01a0c81-1.fc40.src.rpm Gloo is a collective communications library. It comes with a number of collective algorithms useful for machine learning applications. These include a barrier, broadcast, and allreduce. Transport of data between participating machines is abstracted so that IP can be used at all times, or InifiniBand (or RoCE) when available. In the latter case, if the InfiniBand transport is used, GPUDirect can be used to accelerate cross machine GPU-to-GPU memory transfers. Where applicable, algorithms have an implementation that works with system memory buffers, and one that works with NVIDIA GPU memory buffers. In the latter case, it is not necessary to copy memory between host and device; this is taken care of by the algorithm implementations. This commit shows its intended use in the PyTorch package https://github.com/trixirt/pytorch-fedora/commit/f879f528afa93e6ab160bd802ba57e4bfa4b385a Reproducible: Always
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]: 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]: 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 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 252 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/gloo/2240302-gloo/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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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 13843 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: 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]: 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]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gloo-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm gloo-devel-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm gloo-debuginfo-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm gloo-debugsource-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm gloo-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.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/tmplw2t9ko3')] checks: 31, packages: 5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gloo-debuginfo-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.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/tmp10t1mp8h')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 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 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebookincubator/gloo/archive/01a0c815d1a98eb9b38341cf63546f234fbcc43b/gloo-01a0c81.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60053ab1b30c82b8972e67e2614a824d57b978b2751f782562b690bc9e3570a1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60053ab1b30c82b8972e67e2614a824d57b978b2751f782562b690bc9e3570a1 Requires -------- gloo (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_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gloo-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) gloo(x86-64) libgloo.so.23.8.24()(64bit) gloo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gloo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gloo: gloo gloo(x86-64) libgloo.so.23.8.24()(64bit) gloo-devel: cmake(Gloo) cmake(gloo) gloo-devel gloo-devel(x86-64) gloo-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gloo-debuginfo gloo-debuginfo(x86-64) libgloo.so.23.8.24-0.5.0^git20230824.01a0c81-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) gloo-debugsource: gloo-debugsource gloo-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2240302 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, Ocaml, R, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can builds with MPI be added? See for example: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/dbcsr.spec b) Can tests or a smoke test be added? Tests probably need additional configuration, but an example of a smoke test can be found in [1]. c) Can libibverbs transport be enabled? See [1] d) Can libuv transport be enabled? It may need an update to libuv[2] to get cmake files. See [3]. 1) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106636605 2) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libuv 3) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libuv/pull-request/5
4) It does not build on i686
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo-0.5.0%5egit20230824.01a0c81-2.fc40.src.rpm Did not seem to be a knob to turn on MPI Tests depend on a really old openssl, they break the build Added libibverbs Tried to add libuv, can add once your PR is merged Removed i686 from build. Thanks for the review!
There is a knob to turn on MPI, though it is not in the main CMakeLists.txt file: https://github.com/facebookincubator/gloo/blob/main/gloo/mpi/CMakeLists.txt#L1 The OpenSSL used is a compatibility shim allowing use of 1.1 interface but using OpenSSL3. Please see: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106674591 https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/gloo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06440734-gloo/gloo.spec Probably, it is helpful to initially have 3 builds: i) No MPI, ibverbs, tcp ii) OpenMPI, ibverbs, tcp iii) MPICH, ibverbs, tcp There are also nccl and rccl backends: https://github.com/facebookincubator/gloo/tree/main/gloo/nccl but nccl and rccl are not in Fedora. 1) https://github.com/NVIDIA/nccl 2) https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/rccl Please also add soname to shared the library listing: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
What do you mean by 3 builds ? I am looking closer at nccl & rccl, nccl has a cuda requirement and rccl may have a cuda requirement. There is no good way at this time to address building with cuda.
For an example build see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/gloo/build/6467673/ Pull requests to fix directory ownership: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openmpi/pull-request/14 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mpich/pull-request/11 For OpenSSL there are suggested changes at: https://github.com/facebookincubator/gloo/issues/358 Maybe it is better to create a patch? Supporting encrypted communications seems useful. rccl does not require Cuda, it does require Hip, but can be added later.
The first step in getting rccl, having hipify https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241664
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo-0.5.0%5egit20230824.01a0c81-4.fc40.src.rpm I incorporated the changes from https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/gloo/build/6467673/ And combined the subpackages for mpich and openmpi back into the gloo package Since rccl will take a while and is orthogonal, let's go with this
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6506272 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2240302-gloo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06506272-gloo/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.
The MPI packages should be separate. OpenMPI and MPICH cannot be loaded at the same time. Not everybody may want to use the MPI transport. So it is good to have 3 separate packages, one without MPI, one with the OpenMPI implementation of MPI and a third with the MPICH implementation of MPI. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/neurofedora/mpi/ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MPI/#_packaging_of_mpi_software If you have a patch for OpenSSL, that would be great, but not essential.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/gloo-0.5.0%5egit20230824.01a0c81-5.fc40.src.rpm For splitting them back. Change the so version to like what was done for xnnpack Fix a problem in the configury Sorry, no patch for OpenSSL.
Created attachment 1993358 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6506272 to 6514816
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6514816 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2240302-gloo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06514816-gloo/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.
Do not exclude %{_libdir}/mpich/include/ and %{_libdir}/openmpi/include/ The mpich and openmpi development packages should be usable without the main development package. Please fix on import. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gloo
Apparently this was missed: [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. $ dnf5 repoquery --provides openssl1.1-devel | grep deprecated deprecated() This package will become FTBFS in a few days.