Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocthrust7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocthrust7.2-7.2.0-4.fc45.src.rpm This is the ROCm compat version of the existing rocthrust package Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10524117 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483255-rocthrust7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10524117-rocthrust7.2/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.
In license breakdown, I would mention that most of thrust/system/hip/hipstdpar is apache 2 + MIT dual licensed (I think). I believe that's all that's missing from the breakdown. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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. 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License". 78 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/rocthrust7.2/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 17038 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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. [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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocthrust7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocthrust7.2-7.2.0-4.fc45.src.rpm >> In license breakdown, I would mention that most of thrust/system/hip/hipstdpar is apache 2 + MIT dual licensed (I think). >> I believe that's all that's missing from the breakdown. # ./thrust/detail/system/hip/hipstdpar/* is dual Apache 2.0 and MIT # ./thrust/detail/complex contains BSD 2 clause licensed headers # ./thrust/benchmark/*/*.cu is BSD 3 # ./thrust/system/* is BSD 3 I also missed bsd 3. I also changed the order of the license: tag to match the order of the breakdown comments. License: Apache-2.0 AND MIT AND (Apache-2.0 AND BSL-1.0) AND BSL-1.0 AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain AND (Apache-2.0 AND MIT) AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause
Created attachment 2143399 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10524117 to 10525294
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10525294 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483255-rocthrust7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10525294-rocthrust7.2/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.
If licensecheck is correct: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483255-rocthrust7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10525294-rocthrust7.2/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt Then it sounds like you're also missing a breakdown for most of the MIT files. Please confirm
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocthrust7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocthrust7.2-7.2.0-4.fc45.src.rpm > Then it sounds like you're also missing a breakdown for most of the MIT files. Yes. So i added this # These misc files are MIT # ./thrust/detail/config/libcxx.h # ./thrust/detail/nv_target.h # ./thrust/optional.h # ./thrust/system/hip/detail/general/temp_storage.h # ./thrust/system/hip/detail/general/various.h # ./thrust/zip_function.h I also pruned the source of unused items to make the license check easier and adjust the breakdown. here is new part of %prep # Remove some things to make the license check easier rm -rf doc docs examples extra benchmark scripts rm -f toolchain* # hidden files/dirs rm -rf .azuredevops .git* .readthedocs.yaml # remove things only needed in check %if %{without check} rm -rf test testing internal %endif
Created attachment 2144367 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10525294 to 10571296
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10571296 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2483255-rocthrust7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10571296-rocthrust7.2/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.
Looks good to me, approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocthrust7.2 Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`