Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-core7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-core7.2-7.2.0-2.fc45.src.rpm This is a ROCm 7.2 compat version of the existing rocm-core package Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10280932 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453340-rocm-core7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10280932-rocm-core7.2/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.
No issues building and installing! Just a few things I was curious about and a couple things that may need addressing: 1. (The spec contains SUSE/openSUSE conditionals: (%{?suse_version}) in three places: Package naming: %if 0%{?suse_version} %global core_name librocm-core1%{pkg_suffix} ldconfig scriptlets: %if 0%{?suse_version} %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig License file cleanup: # OpenSUSE rm -f %{buildroot}/%{pkg_prefix}/share/doc/*/*/LICENSE.md Not sure if I am missing something, but per the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: "Use of macros and conditionals for other distributions, including Fedora derivatives, is not permitted in spec files of packages in the main Fedora repositories." I am assuming this shouldn't be here, but if I'm wrong please let me know why. 2. No %check section is present. This isn't required, but is there any potential tests that can be ran? If no tests exist upstream, please confirm. == rpmlint Warnings == - specfile-warning setlocale: mock environment locale issue, not a spec problem - only-non-binary-in-usr-lib: expected for compat -devel subpackage containing cmake config files - no-documentation on -devel: minor, not a blocker - no-%check-section: see Issue 2
(In reply to Kurtis from comment #2) > Not sure if I am missing something, but per the Fedora Packaging > Guidelines: "Use of macros and conditionals > for other distributions, including Fedora derivatives, is not > permitted in spec files of packages in the main Fedora repositories." > I am assuming this shouldn't be here, but if I'm wrong please let me know > why. Hi Kurtis, where did you read this? I skimmed https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ and didn't see it. > > 2. No %check section is present. This isn't required, but is there any > potential tests that can be ran? If no tests exist upstream, please > confirm. After a quick check, I don't believe there's any tests that can be run. In theory Unit tests could be introduced, but I don't see any upstream: https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-systems/tree/develop/projects/rocm-core
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #3) > (In reply to Kurtis from comment #2) > > Not sure if I am missing something, but per the Fedora Packaging > > Guidelines: "Use of macros and conditionals > > for other distributions, including Fedora derivatives, is not > > permitted in spec files of packages in the main Fedora repositories." > > I am assuming this shouldn't be here, but if I'm wrong please let me know > > why. > > Hi Kurtis, where did you read this? > I skimmed https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ and > didn't see it. > > > Hi Jeremy, I read it under the "Spec Legibility" on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
Tom, the language seems a bit vague. > Use of macros and conditionals for other distributions, including Fedora derivatives, is not permitted in spec > files of packages in the main Fedora repositories unless those macros and conditionals are also present in Fedora I guess technically the conditionals are also present in Fedora but not used? The language is not very clear. Thoughts?
I am curious why this is a problem suddenly. The reason why I suggested to use this plan is because with ceph we already have the case with one shared spec file: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/main/ceph.spec.in which then ends up as https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ceph/blob/rawhide/f/ceph.spec Ceph upstream actually wants to have just one spec file for the distributions to keep the user experience consistent. And that spec file is also using suse_version based conditionals (among handling for other distros). So this being a problem now is a bit confusing to me. IMHO it is more important to have AMD ROCm with a consistent user experience on all distros to make it easier for users, to help with the image that only CUDA is an option.
I guess it's not really suddenly a problem, it's more like no one noticed until Kurtis brought it up. Maybe we need FESco to weigh in on it and amend or soften the guidelines if they're ok with it. ceph is a good example of something violating this policy
Readability is subjective. This package and the other ROCm packages make an effort to only do suse specific things within a if suse_version block. Is this usage confusing ?
Ok so, as of now, I think the suse bits are negligible, so not really an impact on readability. I would just suggest removing this comment: > # OpenSUSE in the %install section, since it doesn't really add much. Rm won't error if the file doesn't exist with -f. The rest is fine.
Better yet, do this instead: # Remove extra license files rm -f %{buildroot}/%{pkg_prefix}/share/doc/*/LICENSE.md rm -f %{buildroot}/%{pkg_prefix}/share/doc/*/*/LICENSE.md
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-core7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-core7.2-7.2.0-2.fc45.src.rpm for the change # Remove extra licenses files rm -f %{buildroot}/%{pkg_prefix}/share/doc/*/LICENSE.md rm -f %{buildroot}/%{pkg_prefix}/share/doc/*/*/LICENSE.md
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10579178 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2453340-rocm-core7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10579178-rocm-core7.2/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.
As per my conversation with Kurtis off this thread, I will take over review of this since he is still quite new as a packager.
I don't believe the SUSE condition(s) is a blocker for this review. It seems like a stylistic guideline rather that a hard guideline and is not enforced well across Fedora regardless. I'm happy to bring this up with FESCo if anyone wishes to, but as of now, it seems like more a choice by the package maintainer rather than a hard rule. Approved. 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]: 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rocm- core7.2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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. Note: Multiple Release: tags found [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 8414 bytes in 1 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: 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/rocm-core7.2 Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`