Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/migraphx7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/migraphx7.2-7.2.2-2.fc45.src.rpm This is the ROCm compat version of the existing migraphx package Reproducible: Always
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
> # blake3 is not used in the build > ... > # Not used in the build So why not just remove it in %prep? The licensing is a bit of a confusing mess, if you can delete any files you don't need in prep, it would make it much easier to review. It's a big PITA when projects bundle LLVM, but it is what it is. > # Test infra not shipped Ok but is it used in %check? I think the rule is, if it's delete-able, then it's ignore-able. I see you wrapped %check in a condition. I assume the unit tests can't be run right? 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. [?]: 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* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* RealNetworks Public Source License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2015)", "Public domain", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016) [generated file]", "ISC License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Public domain". 80193 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/migraphx7.2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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. [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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/migraphx7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/migraphx7.2-7.2.2-2.fc45.src.rpm >> # blake3 is not used in the build >> ... >> # Not used in the build > > So why not just remove it in %prep? > > The licensing is a bit of a confusing mess, if you can delete any files you don't need in prep, it would make it much easier to review. > It's a big PITA when projects bundle LLVM, but it is what it is. Turns out it is needed. %prep already had removal of unneeded things. I add this comment to cover trying to remove blake3 # try to remove blake3 # rm -rf external/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Support/BLAKE3 # sed -i -e 's@add_subdirectory(BLAKE3)@#add_subdirectory(BLAKE3)@' external/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Support/CMakeLists.txt # sed -i -e '/LLVMSupportBlake3/d' external/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Support/CMakeLists.txt # # Leads to # ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: llvm_blake3_hasher_finalize I know removing other would make the license simpler but removing random files in llvm is itself complicated and error prone. Keeping the documentation as-is is the lower risk. >> # Test infra not shipped > > Ok but is it used in %check? I think the rule is, if it's delete-able, then it's ignore-able. > I see you wrapped %check in a condition. I assume the unit tests can't be run right? Unit tests are not installable, that is why there is a %check. But also depends on a gpu so %check isn't suitable for most cases. Added some comments here # Needs to run on machine with a GPU # Built tests are not installed %bcond_with check %if %{with check} %global build_test ON %else %global build_test OFF %endif
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10684187 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496719-migraphx7.2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10684187-migraphx7.2/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.
> # ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: llvm_blake3_hasher_finalize So shouldn't you add Creative Commons CC0 1.0? It sounds like it builds in these symbols during the build no? Also why not clean up xxhash and regstrlcpy?
>> # ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: llvm_blake3_hasher_finalize > So shouldn't you add Creative Commons CC0 1.0? It sounds like it builds in these symbols during the build no? CC0-1.0 added > Also why not clean up xxhash and regstrlcpy? BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC added Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/migraphx7.2.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/migraphx7.2-7.2.2-2.fc45.src.rpm For updating the license tag to License: MIT AND (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA) AND Apache-2.0 AND CC0-1.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC
Thanks Approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/migraphx7.2 Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`