Bug 2249343 - Review Request: rocalution - A ROCm sparse solver
Summary: Review Request: rocalution - A ROCm sparse solver
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeremy Newton
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2023-11-12 12:08 UTC by Tom Rix
Modified: 2023-11-28 19:27 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-11-28 19:27:50 UTC
Type: ---
alexjnewt: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom Rix 2023-11-12 12:08:33 UTC
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocalution.spec
SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocalution-5.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm

rocALUTION is a sparse linear algebra library that can be used                                                                                                     
to explore fine-grained parallelism on top of the ROCm platform                                                                                                    
runtime and toolchains. Based on C++ and HIP, rocALUTION                                                                                                           
provides a portable, generic, and flexible design that allows                                                                                                      
seamless integration with other scientific software packages.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-12 16:47:07 UTC
Copr build:

Build log:

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field

This comment was created by the 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.

Comment 2 Jeremy Newton 2023-11-17 19:27:45 UTC
Approved, but I was wondering why you don't just add "%{_includedir}/%{name}" to %files devel, as it's recursive by default and there's no need for all the *.hpp and %dir's

Package Review

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

- 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++/

> Ignored

===== MUST items =====

[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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.

[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
[x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10,
     /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9

> I'll fix this, apparently my last rocm-rpm-macros patch didn't go far enough :)

[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
[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: Documentation size is 13307 bytes in 1 files.
[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).

> Nothing concerning

[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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[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
[-]: 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
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: rocalution-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpo764u6md')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

rocalution.x86_64: W: no-documentation
rocalution-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-config-version.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-config-version.cmake
rocalution-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-targets.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/rocalution/rocalution-targets.cmake
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.3 s

Comment 3 Tom Rix 2023-11-17 21:01:25 UTC
some comments in another package i am working on did not like the recursive nature of not listing file.  I can go either way, if you want it reduced i or you can do that whenever is convenient.

Thanks for the review!

Comment 4 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-11-17 21:07:19 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocalution

Comment 5 Jeremy Newton 2023-11-18 01:21:16 UTC
Sorry it looks like I forgot a few things, see my comments in:

We can resolve it there, and then port any fixes here if need be.

Comment 6 Tom Rix 2023-11-21 15:55:27 UTC
I have updated and built rocalution with the in-flight hipsparse changes for debug info and rocm modules.

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