Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-omp.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-omp-6.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm In F42 ROCm is using a bundled llvm in rocm-compilersupport. The compat llvm 18 is being orphaned. This package provides the OpenMP functionality of compat llvm. Because it also adds offload to gpu functionality, it needs to be built after the rocm runtime. So it needs it's own package. This package is needed now by the rocm-rpp package. Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8472432 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335652-rocm-omp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08472432-rocm-omp/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.
As a good practice, you should clean up the source you don't need in %prep if you don't need most of this. It makes it more clear what subset you're building, and it makes the source licensing clearer.
Furthermore, you should add a rocm-llvm-filesystem package that owns the following, and have this package require it: /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/clang /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/cmake /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/clang/18/include /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/include /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/clang/18 /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/bin If a user installs just rocm-omp, then uninstalls the package, it will orphan those directories. Having the filesystem package allows them to still have ownership, and dnf will auto clean up the leaf package. I noticed it complains of: Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rocm- omp-static But static actually requires devel which requires the base package. Anyway, false positive. Also you used defines here: Note: %define requiring justification: %define __sourcedir openmp, %define _vpath_srcdir openmp Not sure of the reason, but you need to comment it. Finally, not sure what this rpmlint output is about: rocm-omp-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-symtab /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/libomptarget.devicertl.a rocm-omp-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/libomptarget.devicertl.a rocm-omp-static.x86_64: E: lto-no-text-in-archive /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/libomptarget.devicertl.a rocm-omp-devel.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib/libomp.so libomp.so
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-omp.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-omp-6.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm, /usr/lib64/rocm, /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/lib rocm-compilersupport / rocm-rpm-macros are being reworked so the ownership of the %libdir/rocm belongs to rocm-compilersupport, here https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-compilersupport/blob/rawhide/f/rocm-compilersupport.spec#_924 %define _vpath_srcdir openmp was simplied to cd openmp rocm-omp, like the rest of the rocm packages will be also used for SUSE, and SUSE does its %cmake a little differently. I am not sure about errors for libomptarget.devicertl.a, it looks like this library is made up of AMDGPU objects and not normal X86 objects. libomp.so. This is consistent with system and compat clang, there are no versions. libomp-19.1.6-2.fc42.x86_64 : OpenMP runtime for clang Repo : @System Matched From : Filename : /usr/lib64/libomp.so libomp18-18.1.8-3.fc42.x86_64 : OpenMP runtime for clang Repo : rawhide Matched From : Filename : /usr/lib64/llvm18/lib/libomp.so
Created attachment 2067008 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8472432 to 8558142
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8558142 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335652-rocm-omp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08558142-rocm-omp/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.
Just realised some files are apache licensed. We might need it in rocm-llvm too: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2335652-rocm-omp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08558142-rocm-omp/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt Can you give it a quick skim? Other than that, it seems fine. Some false positives in the fedora review output, but it seems fine.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-omp.spec SPRM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-omp-6.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Change is to copy the license from the old libomp package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libomp/blob/f40/f/libomp.spec#_41 Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA Then for ROCm parts add AND MIT
Created attachment 2074043 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8558142 to 8578163
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8578163 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335652-rocm-omp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08578163-rocm-omp/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.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-omp