Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xnnpack.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xnnpack-0.0%5egit20221221.51a9875-1.fc40.src.rpm XNNPACK is a highly optimized solution for neural network inference on ARM, x86, WebAssembly, and RISC-V platforms. XNNPACK is not intended for direct use by deep learning practitioners and researchers; instead it provides low-level performance primitives for accelerating high-level machine learning frameworks, such as TensorFlow Lite, TensorFlow.js, PyTorch, ONNX Runtime, and MediaPipe. This commit https://github.com/trixirt/pytorch-fedora/commit/caf5a0af1ef510c5decf723e1dd87c37d68b88b0 Show its intended use in the WIP python-torch.spec Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6494707 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2242399-xnnpack/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06494707-xnnpack/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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". 9114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2242399-xnnpack/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. [ ]: 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: Test run failed [ ]: 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xnnpack- devel [ ]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define __cmake_in_source_build 1 [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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: xnnpack-0.0^git20221221.51a9875-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm xnnpack-devel-0.0^git20221221.51a9875-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm xnnpack-0.0^git20221221.51a9875-1.fc40.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/tmpw340qiff')] checks: 31, packages: 3 xnnpack.aarch64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 xnnpack.aarch64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/XNNPACK/archive/51a987591a6fc9f0fc0707077f53d763ac132cbf/xnnpack-51a9875.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c7319adfb22cf0623a643425c0b6710a67379e5f0837f955d33c72186b64ed7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c7319adfb22cf0623a643425c0b6710a67379e5f0837f955d33c72186b64ed7 Requires -------- xnnpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcpuinfo.so.23.2.14()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthreadpool.so.23.8.29()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xnnpack-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libXNNPACK.so.22.12.21()(64bit) xnnpack(aarch-64) Provides -------- xnnpack: libXNNPACK.so.22.12.21()(64bit) xnnpack xnnpack(aarch-64) xnnpack-devel: xnnpack-devel xnnpack-devel(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242399 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, R, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please add soname, it should not be globbed: %{_libdir}/libXNNPACK.so.* https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files b) Any reason to use %define __cmake_in_source_build 1 instead of %global __cmake_in_source_build 1 c) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107148524 d) The installed library has the date as the soname. Is this expected for all releases? If so, should it correspond to the version?
a) What do you mean by the soname, just unglobbing the %files or something different ? b) ok c) Isn't that what i did ? ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 d) xnnpack is unversioned, neither the project nor *.so, so this was added to the patch0 + # YY.M.D of last upstream commit to main + SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES(XNNPACK PROPERTIES SOVERSION "22.12.21") Which corresponds to this part of the version %global date0 20221221 Version: 0.0^git%{date0}.%{shortcommit0}
a) Would expect: %{_libdir}/libXNNPACK.so.0* See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning c) Sorry, seems ok. d) Using the date seems reasonable. Could something like: 0.0.221221 be used? See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xnnpack.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xnnpack-0.0%5egit20221221.51a9875-2.fc40.src.rpm For the requested changes
Created attachment 1993352 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6494707 to 6514693
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6514693 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2242399-xnnpack/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06514693-xnnpack/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.
Seems ok. May want to run some of the tests and report unexpected failures upstream. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xnnpack