Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver-5.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm rocSOLVER is a work-in-progress implementation of a subset of LAPACK functionality on the ROCm platform. Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6627137 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249410-rocsolver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06627137-rocsolver/builder-live.log.gz 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 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.
Using a local build environment, I was able to build the package for rawhide (didn't try Fedora 38 or 39 as I expect that will fail due to absence of dependencies like rocblas). Happy to upload logs, but I wasn't able to see anything obvious for why the builder state would be marked as failed (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-review/fedora-review-2249410-rocsolver/build/6627137/) for rawhide, and the build time reported by fedora review (5 hours) seems somewhat reasonable as it took me almost two hours to build using fedpkg on my machine. Also is it normal for the logs to be empty (404) on fedora-review?
I recently added llvm style cmake configs to fine tune the compile and linking jobs for composable_kernel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251765 . rocsolver has similar, though not as acute problems. I will add this feature there as well.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver-5.7.1-2.fc40.src.rpm These have the compile and linking jobs changes so should be easier to build on less capable machines.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6717164 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249410-rocsolver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06717164-rocsolver/builder-live.log.gz 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 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.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Update to ROCm 6.0
Mock build in rawhide toolbox failed for me without much info... But https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111295271 seems to be building (now at 45min)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6862467 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249410-rocsolver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06862467-rocsolver/builder-live.log.gz 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 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.
Wow, koji build took 6 hours and the build.log is ~39MB, pretty hefty package indeed (the main rpm is also 123MB). (Just curious, any idea why it is failing in Copr?) Anyway let me try to review this - though I am far from a GPU expert: would be good if knowledgeable people would also weigh in.
I _think_ copr times out after 5hr. The size and length of build are unfortunate but similar to what rocblas has. The basic problem with ROCm is that provide support for all of the available gpu's, libraries need to be built against each specific gpu. I think we have close to 15 now.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 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++/ This is a very large package: could you add some comments above the License field describing the license breakdown details? ===== 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License". 489 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/petersen/pkgreview/reviews/2249410-rocsolver/rocsolver/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4308 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [?]: 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. Could add a comment about the patch, though seems it is 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. Are there any tests which could be run? [?]: 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: rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rocsolver-devel-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/var/home/petersen/tmp/tmp4rn2k8wn')] checks: 31, packages: 3 rocsolver.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocsolver-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-config-version.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-config-version.cmake rocsolver-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-targets.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/rocsolver/rocsolver-targets.cmake ====================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 11.7 s ======================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rocsolver". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 2 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "rocsolver-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/rocSOLVER/archive/refs/tags/rocm-6.0.0.tar.gz#/rocSOLVER-6.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5fcaba96f3efafc2ecc3f4ec104095d96545c16e1b9f95410bd571cb0fc643ae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5fcaba96f3efafc2ecc3f4ec104095d96545c16e1b9f95410bd571cb0fc643ae Requires -------- rocsolver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) librocblas.so.4()(64bit) librocsparse.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(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) rocsolver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) librocsolver.so.0()(64bit) rocsolver(x86-64) Provides -------- rocsolver: librocsolver.so.0()(64bit) rocsolver rocsolver(x86-64) rocsolver-devel: cmake(rocsolver) rocsolver-devel rocsolver-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n rocsolver -p -r Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, R, Java, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I am not able to install the build though?: $ sudo dnf install ./rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) needed by rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline - nothing provides libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) needed by rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline - nothing provides libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) needed by rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline - nothing provides librocblas.so.4()(64bit) needed by rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline - nothing provides librocsparse.so.1()(64bit) needed by rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline $ rpm -qlp rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm | grep -e \\.so /usr/lib64/librocsolver.so.0 /usr/lib64/librocsolver.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/librocsolver.so.0 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/librocsolver.so.0 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/librocsolver.so.0 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/librocsolver.so.0 /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1
Created attachment 2008371 [details] licensecheck.txt.gz
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #13) > Created attachment 2008371 [details] > licensecheck.txt.gz licensecheck reports bsd 2. If you look at LICENSE.md, the AMD license is bsd 2, the following ones for lapack and magma are bsd 3
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #12) > I am not able to install the build though?: > > $ sudo dnf install ./rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > Error: > Problem: conflicting requests > - nothing provides libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) needed by > rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline > - nothing provides libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) needed by > rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline > - nothing provides libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) needed by > rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline > - nothing provides librocblas.so.4()(64bit) needed by > rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline > - nothing provides librocsparse.so.1()(64bit) needed by > rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64 from @commandline > > $ rpm -qlp rocsolver-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm | grep -e \\.so > /usr/lib64/librocsolver.so.0 > /usr/lib64/librocsolver.so.0.1 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/librocsolver.so.0 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/librocsolver.so.0 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/librocsolver.so.0 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/librocsolver.so.0 > /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/librocsolver.so.0.1 These are other rocm packages called out in the buildrequires. For me, a local fedora-review -n rocsolver, shows the install of the rpm was successful
Sorry my bad - you can ignore the install issue: I was trying in F39, doh. (Because I couldn't run fedora-review in Rawhide.) Once you address the minor review issues, I am happy to approve the package.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocsolver-6.0.0-2.fc40.src.rpm I believe the issues have been resolved, please flag what I have missed.
Created attachment 2008619 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6862467 to 6894961
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6894961 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249410-rocsolver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06894961-rocsolver/builder-live.log.gz 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 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.
Thanks, Tom, LGTM now > - 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++/ Perhaps "BuildRequires: clang" should be added, even though it is a dependency of clang-devel? Package is APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocsolver
To be technical, the compiler is hipcc, a clang derivative it comes in from the toolchain being rocm. And yes clang comes from clang-devel.