Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/amdsmi.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm The AMD System Management Interface Library, or AMD SMI library, is a C library for Linux that provides a user space interface for applications to monitor and control AMD devices. amdsmi is a runtime requirement for pytorch. Reproducible: Always
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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", "MIT License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License [generated file]". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/amdsmi/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib/python3.13 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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). [!]: 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. [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: Documentation size is 13289 bytes in 1 files. [x]: 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-devel-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm python3-amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-debuginfo-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-debugsource-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =============================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpj2mnb873')] checks: 32, packages: 6 python3-amdsmi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amd-smi amdsmi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-amdsmi.x86_64: W: no-documentation ========= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 37 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: amdsmi-debuginfo-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm =============================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgl24emx9')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 5 python3-amdsmi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amd-smi python3-amdsmi.x86_64: W: no-documentation amdsmi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 35 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-amdsmi: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/amdsmi/libamd_smi.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amd/esmi_ib_library/archive/refs/tags/esmi_pkg_ver-3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9467b60d08dcc5ea54b6db425f757e60161a144cf5ba3006d5d50d6a653c039 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9467b60d08dcc5ea54b6db425f757e60161a144cf5ba3006d5d50d6a653c039 https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/amdsmi/archive/rocm-6.2.0.tar.gz#/amdsmi-6.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 49e4b15af62bf9800c02a24c75c6cd99dc8b146d69cc7f00ecbbcd60f6106315 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 49e4b15af62bf9800c02a24c75c6cd99dc8b146d69cc7f00ecbbcd60f6106315 Requires -------- amdsmi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) amdsmi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): amdsmi(x86-64) libamd_smi.so.0()(64bit) python3-amdsmi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 amdsmi(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) amdsmi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): amdsmi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- amdsmi: amdsmi amdsmi(x86-64) bundled(esmi_ib_library) libamd_smi.so.0()(64bit) amdsmi-devel: amdsmi-devel amdsmi-devel(x86-64) python3-amdsmi: libamd_smi.so.0()(64bit) python-amdsmi python3-amdsmi python3-amdsmi(x86-64) python3.13-amdsmi amdsmi-debuginfo: amdsmi-debuginfo amdsmi-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libamd_smi.so.0.0-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) amdsmi-debugsource: amdsmi-debugsource amdsmi-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, R, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. This seems to be the Python C bindings and look to be okay. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Why is it best to bundle esmi_ib_library and not make another package? [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python I question if this shouldn't be just the main package name and not a python3- package. Does the package have any purpose if the cli isn't installed? [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream tests not suitable for running in offline. Do you have a bug filed for this?
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/amdsmi.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm For a refresh for review comments. I looked into packaging esmi_lib_library and added this comment to the spec file. # esmi_ib_library is not suitable for packaging # https://github.com/amd/esmi_ib_library/issues/13 # This tag was choosen by the amdsmi project because 4.0+ introduced variables not # found in the upstream kernel. I have moved the python bits into the main package. For %check. While the local copy of googletest isn't great. The tests themselves depend on having amd cpu and gpu install, so i do not think a bug is necessary for googletest, because even if this was fixed we would still have to run on hardware that exercised the code. I improved the comment. # Downloads its own googletest # Testing also depends on having AMD hardware cpu and/or gpu installed. # Not suitable for a general %check # # Non root result for gfx1100 and this kernel 6.11.0-0.rc2.23.fc41.x86_64 # 25 pass, 5 fail # No oops
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/amdsmi See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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", "MIT License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License [generated file]". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/amdsmi/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [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. [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: Documentation size is 13289 bytes in 1 files. [x]: 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 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-devel-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-debuginfo-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-debugsource-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =============================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpovmpc8k2')] checks: 32, packages: 5 amdsmi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amd-smi amdsmi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation amdsmi.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %check ========= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 48 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: amdsmi-debuginfo-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm =============================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmprfnt7e1y')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 4 amdsmi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amd-smi amdsmi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- amdsmi: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/amdsmi/libamd_smi.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amd/esmi_ib_library/archive/refs/tags/esmi_pkg_ver-3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f9467b60d08dcc5ea54b6db425f757e60161a144cf5ba3006d5d50d6a653c039 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f9467b60d08dcc5ea54b6db425f757e60161a144cf5ba3006d5d50d6a653c039 https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/amdsmi/archive/rocm-6.2.0.tar.gz#/amdsmi-6.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 49e4b15af62bf9800c02a24c75c6cd99dc8b146d69cc7f00ecbbcd60f6106315 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 49e4b15af62bf9800c02a24c75c6cd99dc8b146d69cc7f00ecbbcd60f6106315 Requires -------- amdsmi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) amdsmi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): amdsmi(x86-64) libamd_smi.so.0()(64bit) amdsmi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): amdsmi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- amdsmi: amdsmi amdsmi(x86-64) bundled(esmi_ib_library) libamd_smi.so.0()(64bit) amdsmi-devel: amdsmi-devel amdsmi-devel(x86-64) amdsmi-debuginfo: amdsmi-debuginfo amdsmi-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libamd_smi.so.0.0-6.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) amdsmi-debugsource: amdsmi-debugsource amdsmi-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, R, Perl, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/amdsmi See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files %dir %{_includedir}/amd_smi and %{_includedir}/amd_smi seems to be the problem here. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Once we confirm that the python code is not intended to be imported by end users and is merely just the language used to implement the cli, I think this is good.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/amdsmi.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/amdsmi-6.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Removed the %dir's
APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/amdsmi