Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipify.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipify-5.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm HIPIFY is a set of tools to translate CUDA source code into portable HIP C++ automatically. hipify is needed to build rccl here is it use in the WIP rccl.spech ttps://github.com/trixirt/rccl/blob/fedora/rocm-rel-5.7/rccl.spec#L28C7-L28C7 Reproducible: Always
Hi Benson, I hope you don't mind I take this. I have been working with upstream regarding this and would like to review it.
copr build for testing: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mystro256/playground/build/6519927/
Done.
Thank Benson. It looks mostly good, but I think that the license is actually MIT, not BSD: https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIPIFY/blob/rocm-5.7.0/LICENSE.txt Other than that, I had some observations (non-blocking): - You're missing clang as a BuildRequires, so it's complaining, but adding clang-devel is enough. We should probably complain to the fedora-review maintainer :) - I need to work with upstream to make this work better with upstream LLVM, like I did with rocm-device-libs and rocm-compilersupport, but this can wait I think. Same to be said with hipcc I think. - I know the patch you included is to deal with libclang being shared/dynamic only in Fedora. We can approach upstream to see if we can make this autodetect, like I did with comgr previously. - I think I would prefer if some of the scripts had less generic names to avoid possible conflicts in the future, or placed in libexec if it's only needed as a subscript/library script of hipify. E.g. findcode.sh. - A quick test would be nice. E.g. a minimal cuda file built in %check. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: 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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [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]: 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: [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. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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.
Spec File: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipify.spec SRPM File: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipify-5.7.0-2.fc40.src.rpm I fixed the license. Cleaned up the buildrequires a bit, yes X is isn't needed if X-devel is there Added a test I had misgivings about those generically named file earlier. I excluded them. If it breaks something later, in another package, I address it then.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6524293 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241664-hipify/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06524293-hipify/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.
I'm thinking you can move the generic named scripts to %{libexec}/%{name}, but yes you can deal with that later. I'm not sure whats going on with non rawhide copr builds Anyway, approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hipify