MiVisionX upstream is https://github.com/ROCm/MIVisionX MIVisionX toolkit is a set of comprehensive computer vision and machine intelligence libraries, utilities, and applications bundled into a single toolkit. AMD MIVisionX delivers highly optimized conformant open-source implementation of the Khronos OpenVX™ and OpenVX™ Extensions along with Convolution Neural Net Model Compiler & Optimizer supporting ONNX, and Khronos NNEF™ exchange formats. The toolkit allows for rapid prototyping and deployment of optimized computer vision and machine learning inference workloads on a wide range of computer hardware, including small embedded x86 CPUs, APUs, discrete GPUs, and heterogeneous servers. This bz tracks the package and its dependencies. Reproducible: Always
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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/mivisionx.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/mivisionx-6.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm MIVisionX toolkit is a set of comprehensive computer vision and machine intelligence libraries, utilities, and applications bundled into a single toolkit. AMD MIVisionX delivers highly optimized conformant open-source implementation of the Khronos OpenVX™ and OpenVX™ Extensions along with Convolution Neural Net Model Compiler & Optimizer supporting ONNX, and Khronos NNEF™ exchange formats. The toolkit allows for rapid prototyping and deployment of optimized computer vision and machine learning inference workloads on a wide range of computer hardware, including small embedded x86 CPUs, APUs, discrete GPUs, and heterogeneous servers.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8481837 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335650-mivisionx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08481837-mivisionx/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/mivisionx.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/mivisionx-6.3.2-1.fc42.src.rpm An update to 6.3.2, with some testing results.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8659671 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335650-mivisionx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08659671-mivisionx/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.
Hmm due to the more complex licensing, there really should be a license breakdown in the comment above license field. See review criteria: > [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/mivisionx.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/mivisionx-6.3.2-1.fc42.src.rpm For the license breakdown. Also fixed an issue with half.h
@ Jeremy Newton, if your reviewing this feel free to take it, I blew over your comment when I just looked at this bug.
No worries, I was almost done, Feel free to take wmma if you want to review something: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261946
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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 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", "MIT License", "MIT License [generated file]", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Khronos License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 1163 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/mivisionx/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]: %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 29180 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 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: [!]: 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. [?]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mivisionx