Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipsparse.spec SPRM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipsparse-5.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm hipSPARSE is a SPARSE marshalling library with multiple supported backends. It sits between your application and a 'worker' SPARSE library, where it marshals inputs to the backend library and marshals results to your application. hipSPARSE exports an interface that doesn't require the client to change, regardless of the chosen backend. Currently, hipSPARSE supports rocSPARSE and cuSPARSE backends. Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6626861 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249384-hipsparse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06626861-hipsparse/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.
So two comments. First you need: Requires: rocm-rpm-macros-modules I forgot to check if rocalution had it, but looks like you forgot it there too. Second, is there a reason why you're stripping the SO's? Doesn't rpm automatically do this and throw it in the debuginfo package? If there is a good reason, you should state it in a comment. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/ Looks like I missed this in rocalution as well. 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++/ > Ignored ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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]: 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 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. 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/gfx9, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10 > Should be fixed here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-rpm-macros/c/e5b83fd4bee2f7753b58b8e3dff9142930210670?branch=rawhide > but you need to add the requires (see above) [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > see above [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > See comment above strip above [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 11305 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). [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 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. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hipsparse-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hipsparse-devel-5.7.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hipsparse-5.7.1-1.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/tmpq5b9jn3c')] checks: 31, packages: 3 hipsparse.x86_64: W: no-documentation hipsparse-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-config-version.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-config-version.cmake hipsparse-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-targets.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/hipsparse/hipsparse-targets.cmake 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipsparse.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipsparse-5.7.1-2.fc40.src.rpm Explicitly setting build type to RelWithDebInfo resolved the strip/debuginfo. Sorry I assumed %cmake would do this as it should be a common option for every cmake project.
Yeah, I've had to do that a few times. I'm not sure if it's related, but you shouldn't add " -mcmodel=medium" like that. As far as I know, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS replaces the flags, not append them. E.g. you should either add it to %global build_cxxflags at the top of the spec, or add %{build_cxxflags} to the DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS option.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipsparse.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/hipsparse-5.7.1-3.fc40.src.rpm Simpler to remove the use of -mcmodel. Since this is a very small project, it is not needed.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6670533 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249384-hipsparse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06670533-hipsparse/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Created attachment 2000525 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6670533 to 6670538
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6670538 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249384-hipsparse/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06670538-hipsparse/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Looks good, approved. Minor gripe: - %dir %{_libdir}/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/%{name} seems like you should use a wildcard (gfx*), but I think I already mentioned this.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hipsparse