Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9701073
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404856-xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09701073-xpu-manager/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://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09701003-xpu-manager/xpu-manager.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09701003-xpu-manager/xpu-manager-1.3.3-1.fc44.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9706683
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404856-xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09706683-xpu-manager/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.

The auto build here will fail because there are dependencies that need to be created first before we can make this package via Fedora Review service.

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09701003-xpu-manager/xpu-manager.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09701003-xpu-manager/xpu-manager-1.3.3-1.fc44.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9731576
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404856-xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09731576-xpu-manager/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Flagged issue, seems like a non issue for me.
"""
...
%files -n xpu-smi
%config(noreplace)
%license LICENSE.md
...
"""

@negativo17  This is ready for review.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

Sorry I'm terribly busy at work. Starting now.

A few items to adjust...

The package does not generate deubinfo information because the compiler flags set in CMakelists.txt override the default one from Fedora. To avoid patching, please do the following.

Remove these lines:

#Does not properly generate debug info
%define debug_package %{nil}

Set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to a random string, for example:

CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Fedora

This will make sure the compiler flags (which are already quite aggressive) are properly set for the project, and debug files are properly generated.

1- The two empty %config(noreplace) lines in the %files section do not make any sense, please remove them.

2- Please use %{_includedir}/*.h in the files section to avoid this:

xpu-manager.spec:92: W: shared-dir-glob-in-files %{_includedir}/*

(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #12)
> Set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to a random string, for example:
> 
> CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Fedora

Sample output:

Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/xpu-smi-devel-1.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/xpu-manager-debugsource-1.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/xpu-smi-1.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/xpu-smi-debuginfo-1.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm

3 - For each of the third_party subfolders:

$ ls -1d xpumanager-1.3.3/third_party/*
xpumanager-1.3.3/third_party/CLI11
xpumanager-1.3.3/third_party/hwloc
xpumanager-1.3.3/third_party/json
xpumanager-1.3.3/third_party/pcm
xpumanager-1.3.3/third_party/spdlog

You need to see if you can build from packages already in Fedora (unbundling), and if not, you need to declare:

Provides: bundled(<item>) = <version>

If you don't know the version, this is enough:

Provides: bundled(<item>)

While at it, please add after the %autosetup line the following:

rm -fr 3rd_party_src/

Doesn't make any difference, but we are sure there is no accidental bundling.

4 - OPTIONAL - You can deduplicate the description as shown here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/kenryo/rpms/igsc/c/4699dc88f341b8056a909cd3308f9c46225041f1

5 - Please sort BuildRequires, Requires and Recommends in each section.

(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #15)
> You need to see if you can build from packages already in Fedora
> (unbundling), and if not, you need to declare:

I tried with hwloc (which you already list as a BuildRequires):

diff -Naur xpumanager-1.3.3.old/CMakeLists.txt xpumanager-1.3.3/CMakeLists.txt
--- xpumanager-1.3.3.old/CMakeLists.txt 2025-11-27 09:27:17.158704338 +0100
+++ xpumanager-1.3.3/CMakeLists.txt 2025-11-27 10:11:29.921798210 +0100
@@ -93,7 +93,6 @@
   add_subdirectory(third_party/googletest)
 endif()
 add_subdirectory(third_party/spdlog)
-add_subdirectory(third_party/hwloc)
 add_subdirectory(third_party/pcm/pcm-iio-gpu)

 add_subdirectory(core)
@@ -119,11 +118,6 @@
   endif()
 endif()

-add_dependencies(xpum lib_hwloc)
-if(EXISTS ${CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR}/core/test)
-  add_dependencies(test_xpum_api lib_hwloc)
-endif()
-
 if(NOT DEFINED CPACK_GENERATOR)
   if(${os_name} MATCHES "debian" OR ${os_name} MATCHES "ubuntu" OR ${os_name} MATCHES "Ubuntu")
     set(CPACK_GENERATOR "DEB")

And then changing the prep section as follows:

%prep
%autosetup -n %{upstream_name}-%{version} -p1
rm -fr 3rd_party_src third_party/hwloc

And as you can see works just fine:

$ rpm -qp --requires xpu-smi-1.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm | grep libhwloc
libhwloc.so.15()(64bit)

Please try to unbundle the other components.

6 - Please patch/adjust build options so configuration files are not under /usr:

$ rpm -qpl xpu-smi-1.3.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm | grep config
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/diagnostics.conf
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/pci.conf
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/pci.ids
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/perf_metrics.conf
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/vgpu.conf
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/xpum.conf
/usr/lib/xpu-smi/config/xpum.conf.template

And make sure they are properly marked as %config(noreplace) in the %files section if required.

7 - Just a suggestion; maybe name it intel-xpumanager? You can grep all intel relevant packages with:

dnf list intel\*

The user is not expected to edit source, this is conf files that support the program /usr/bin/xpu-smi.
Like which cards are supported and configurations, etc..

As for naming, this command line utility technically supports cards that are not just Intel.

I would like to leave the "intel-"  name out if possible.

(In reply to pavel.androniychuk from comment #20)
> The user is not expected to edit source, this is conf files that support the
> program /usr/bin/xpu-smi.
> Like which cards are supported and configurations, etc..

Then leave them where they are and not mark them as config files.

(In reply to pavel.androniychuk from comment #21)
> As for naming, this command line utility technically supports cards that are
> not just Intel.
> 
> I would like to leave the "intel-"  name out if possible.

Up to you, was just an idea.

Please post the updated:

SPEC Url: ...
SRPM Url: ...

Thanks.

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09857504-xpu-smi/xpu-smi.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09857504-xpu-smi/xpu-smi-1.3.4-1.fc44.src.rpm

All good, but this point has not been addressed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2404856#c17

You left in place the hwloc-devel build requirement without using, and you did not unbundle any library or added Provides: bundled(<item>) = <version> where required.

Please unbundle libraries where possible.

The fix for using installed pkgs from the distro and not the third_party sources is trending to land in a new version release that is pending SDL internally at Intel.
No ETA yet.

ETA trending to end of June 2026

Thanks for working on the review of Intel XPU Manager. This project provides an important management and monitoring interface for Intel GPUs and accelerators on Linux, making it valuable for Fedora users working with AI, HPC, and data center workloads. The package appears to fill a growing need in the ecosystem as Intel's accelerator portfolio expands. Looking forward to seeing the review progress and eventual availability in Fedora repositories. Appreciation t
https://www.mykpschedule.org

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-44-x86_64/10665226-xpu-smi/xpu-smi.spec 
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-44-x86_64/10665226-xpu-smi/xpu-smi-2.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

ready for review

The package looks good to me. Just a few points:

- Why is it called xpu-smi instead of xpumanager?
- There is a folder called THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES. If the tarball is shipping code using some of the sources mentioned in the folder, the License field needs to be updated for that.
- What is the point of the devel subpackage with just the unversioned shared object? How are you supposed to consume/link to the library?

1. xpumanager is something different, it has a deamon backend and it's discontinued, xpu-smi is the shorter version of it, like nvidia-smi
2. Not sure why that folder is still there, the refactored 2.0 version has no 3rd party code, those are all listed as dependencies and pulled in during builds
3. You're right, no need for a devel pkg at all.

Build is successful with latest changes here
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/androniychuk/xpu-manager/build/10718065/

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-44-x86_64/10718325-xpu-smi/xpu-smi.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/androniychuk/xpu-manager/fedora-44-x86_64/10718325-xpu-smi/xpu-smi-2.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm

Package approved. Thanks.

Wait, one last thing, I didn't notice you moved the unversioned library. What's the use for it in the main package?

Btw, this is still in the repository: https://github.com/intel/xpumanager/tree/main/THIRD_PARTY_LICENSES

(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #35)
> Wait, one last thing, I didn't notice you moved the unversioned library.
> What's the use for it in the main package?

The binary is correctly linked to the versioned library, please remove libxpum.so at the end of the %install phase. Thanks.

Besides that, package is approved.

ok will do

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xpu-manager
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Note that the name in the review title and the package and the spec MUST ALL MATCH.

You can't have a 'xpu-manager' package that makes something called something different.

So, either retarget this (change title, reapprove) and make a new package and retire the old xpu-manager one, or
change the spec here to be called xpu-manager and use the existing newly created package.

The project is called xpu-manager and there is an xpu-manager pkg that is coming, but we are building only xpu-smi
In the future, if it is compliant, we would like to build the xpu-manager, but right now we are only releasing the xpu-smi package.
Is it possible to get an exception?

No, it's not just a policy... all our tooling assumes that the package name == the spec name. The src repos creation, bugzilla bugs, all the reports, the build system and updates system, etc, etc, 

You could I suppose rename the spec to xpu-manager.spec and then have it just produce a package called xpi-smi... 
Most python packages already do this with the package called 'python-foo' and the package it builds called 'python3-foo', you can look at most any of those.

ok...this all looks too familiar, I think at 1 point I had this project setup in that way

Pushed changes and building, thanks Kevin.

scratch build

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148425127