Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-filesystem-7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-filesystem-7.2-7.2.0-3.fc45.src.rpm Reproducible: Always
wouldn't the convention be rocm-filesystem7.2? E.g. see llvm packages, where it's llvm21, llvm20, llvm19, etc
ROCm upstream uses rocm-<MAJOR>.<MINOR> So this naming is consistent with upstream.
Yes, but llvm doesn't use the extra "-" Upstream rocm vendor packages also do this too, e.g.: https://repo.radeon.com/rocm/rhel10/7.2/main/rocm7.2.0-7.2.0.70200-43.el10.x86_64.rpm where rocm7.2.0 is the package name.
to clarify, my suggestion is: -%global pkg_suffix -%{rocm_release} +%global pkg_suffix %{rocm_release} To align with upstream vendor packages and other fedora packages. Even GCC does this where packages have the version tacked on without a separator.
That would break a lot of things that use it in paths. Let me think about this and resubmit
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10178451 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443333-rocm-filesystem-7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10178451-rocm-filesystem-7.2/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/rocm-filesystem7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-filesystem7.2-7.2.0-3.fc45.src.rpm For the pkg_suffix change. I earlier, I confused pkg_suffix and pkg_prefix. This is a pretty easy change. I am working on updating the other packages.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10179947 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443333-rocm-filesystem7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10179947-rocm-filesystem7.2/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.
Fedora review flagged some directories: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/rocm, /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2 rocm-llvm-filesystem owns /usr/lib64/rocm (I think), although it's an odd choice architecturally. You need to make sure you add a requires rocm-llvm-filesystem to this package avoid directory orphaning. The other two needs to be added to this package: %dir %{pkg_prefix} %dir %{pkg_prefix}/%{pkg_libdir} Other than that, it's good ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/rocm, /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: 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]: 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.
SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-filesystem7.2-7.2.0-3.fc45.src.rpm Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-filesystem7.2.spec To get who own /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2 and /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/lib I add these %if %{with compat} %dir %{pkg_prefix}/ %dir %{pkg_prefix}/%{pkg_libdir} %endif To who owns /usr/lib64/rocm, I added this %if %{with compat} BuildRequires: rocm-filsystem Requires: rocm-filesystem %endif In the normal case this is the line in %files %dir %{pkg_prefix}/%{pkg_libdir}/rocm rocm-llvm-filesystem used to own this, now it owns only the llvm/* dirs
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10205150 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443333-rocm-filesystem7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10205150-rocm-filesystem7.2/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.
Thanks, approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-filesystem7.2