Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools-0.2.8-1.fc44.src.rpm Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9696701 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404638-python-amd-debug-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09696701-python-amd-debug-tools/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.
I am seeing positive result in Fedora Rawhide. I installed the package and ran amd-s2idle & then compared it with the output from running the script directly from https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/superm1/amd-debug-tools.git . The only issue I noticed was that the Firefox browser will not open the html result a new tab, if it's already opened. It will throw an error popup. If the Firefox browser window is not open, a mew Firefox window will be launched with html output. But, Fedora 42 build has failed, because the package "git" is required. From the build log..... Processing /builddir/build/BUILD/python-amd-debug-tools-0.2.8-build/amd-debug-tools-0.2.8 Preparing metadata (pyproject.toml): started Running command Preparing metadata (pyproject.toml) /bin/sh: line 1: git: command not found /bin/sh: line 1: git: command not found
I think git error is a false positive. the building is from a tarball and disconnected from the network.
How should the other requirements for running the commands be handled? I tried to run amd-s2idle on a test machine but had to install v4l-utils, ethtool and acpica-tools before it would try to run. Should those be requires?
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools-0.2.8-1.fc44.src.rpm Yes! Thanks for trying it out, the package has been updated. Also, here is a docker for trying it out. https://github.com/trixirt/rocm-distro-containers/blob/main/fedora/rawhide/python-amd-debug-tools/Dockerfile
Created attachment 2111661 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9696701 to 9753344
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9753344 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404638-python-amd-debug-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09753344-python-amd-debug-tools/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.
Created attachment 2114995 [details] Suggested changes to specfile Please add the license in the %license section. Also, afaik we don't need the pip buildrequires. It could also be easier to generate the BuildRequires from pyproject.toml by using %generate_buildrequires and %pyproject_buildrequires instead of rewriting them manually manually, but this part is up to your preference.
There is test suite available, can you please try to add: %pytest line in %check section (might need to add some more buildreqs)?
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools-0.2.10-1.fc44.src.rpm For an update to the latest upstream. changed to generate requires. >> Please add the license in the %license section. Not need, i use -l in the pyproject_install https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_install %check is not practical it requires amd hardware.
Created attachment 2115068 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9753344 to 9808755
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9808755 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404638-python-amd-debug-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09808755-python-amd-debug-tools/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.
Issues ====== - Can you build the latest? 0.2.11 - I assume you dropped cysystemd because fedora doesn't have a package for it? Any feature loss or problems doing this? Please note it in a comment. - Shouldn't you exclusive arch this for all arches with amdgpu enabled? I think that's ppc64le, arm64, and probably riscv. It's noarch, so no risk of build breakage. - Please notify upstream of the PKG-INFO file if you haven't already and note in the comment. - Please use "cp -p" in %prep Else wise it looks pretty good to me Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-amd-debug- tools/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages > Seems like a false positive, python3.14-libs should own these [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]: 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 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 5862 bytes in 4 files. [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. [x]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/superm1/amd-debug- tools.git/snapshot/amd-debug-tools-0.2.10.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [x]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-amd-debug-tools-0.2.12-1.fc44.src.rpm - Can you build the latest? 0.2.11 Updated to 0.2.12 - I assume you dropped cysystemd because fedora doesn't have a package for it? Any feature loss or problems doing this? Please note it in a comment. No loss or problems. - Shouldn't you exclusive arch this for all arches with amdgpu enabled? I think that's ppc64le, arm64, and probably riscv. It's noarch, so no risk of build breakage. Sure, but I only tested this on x86. I have no way to know if any of these alt arches work, so that is risk. - Please notify upstream of the PKG-INFO file if you haven't already and note in the comment. I have improved the comment some to this # PKG-INFO is not a static file, it is generated by building # python3 -m build # We use a different build process so we need to manually add the file. # Do the above command then untar the dist/amd_debug_tools-* to find it. I do not believe this is a real problem, the upstream generates this file as a byproduct of their build. - Please use "cp -p" in %prep ok
For building the upstream to collect the PKG_INFO file, use this docker https://github.com/trixirt/rocm-distro-containers/blob/main/fedora/rawhide/python-amd-debug-tools/upstream/Dockerfile
Created attachment 2122546 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9808755 to 10032441
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10032441 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404638-python-amd-debug-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10032441-python-amd-debug-tools/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.
Ack, feel free to disable some arches if the build fails, it's not critical. Approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-amd-debug-tools