https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2450497
Jeremy Newton <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Newton <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: rocm-llvm7.2-static, rocm-clang7.2-runtime- devel. Does not provide -static: rocm-clang7.2-runtime-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries > Above was autogenerated, but the issue is pretty straightforward, > rocm-clang7.2-runtime-devel is missing a static provides > We should also make sure whatever uses it down the stack uses the> > static name as a build require, not the devel name - Putting a license breakdown is pretty heavy, but I think the least we can do is breakdown what is MIT (i.e. amd code) since it differs from llvm - %{rocm_llvm_name}-libs can be installed without a license file if libcxx is not enabled. Just add a %license macro to fix this - Missing version for requires on other subpackages in this spec. See below, this is a "should" item - Patch 6 should have a link to upstream commit ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* RealNetworks Public Source License", "Apache License 2.0", "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", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Public domain", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Boost Software License 1.0", "*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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Public domain". 104482 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/anewton/rocm-compilersupport7.2/rocm- compilersupport7.2/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. > See above [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/.build-id/9e, /usr/lib/.build-id/af, /usr/lib/.build-id/87, /usr/lib/.build-id/9f, /usr/lib/.build-id/3b, /usr/lib/.build-id/ee > I think this is noise, I'm inclined to ignore it [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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. [-]: 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 53940 bytes in 5 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 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: [!]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rocm- compilersupport7.2-macros , rocm-device-libs7.2 , rocm-comgr7.2 , rocm-comgr7.2-devel , hipcc7.2 , rocm-llvm7.2-filesystem , rocm- llvm7.2-libs , rocm-llvm7.2 , rocm-llvm7.2-devel , rocm-llvm7.2-static , rocm-clang7.2-libs , rocm-clang7.2-runtime-devel , rocm-clang7.2 , rocm-clang7.2-devel , rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2 , rocm-clang-tools- extra7.2-devel , rocm-lld7.2 , rocm-clang-analyzer7.2 > This should be fixed [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > Patch 6 should have a link to upstream commit [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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define __sourcedir llvm, %define __builddir build-llvm, %define __sourcedir llvm, %define __builddir build-llvm-2, %define __sourcedir amd/device-libs, %define __builddir build-devicelibs, %define __sourcedir amd/hipcc, %define __builddir build-hipcc, %define __sourcedir amd/comgr, %define __builddir build-comgr, %define __sourcedir amd/device-libs, %define __builddir build-devicelibs, %define __builddir build-llvm-2, %define __builddir build-devicelibs, %define __builddir build-comgr, %define __builddir build-hipcc > All of this appears to be hidden behind 0%{?suse_version}, so it's ok [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. ===== 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rocm-compilersupport7.2-macros-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.noarch.rpm rocm-device-libs7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-comgr7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-comgr7.2-devel-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm hipcc7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-llvm7.2-filesystem-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-llvm7.2-libs-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-llvm7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-llvm7.2-devel-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-llvm7.2-static-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang7.2-libs-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang7.2-runtime-devel-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang7.2-devel-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2-devel-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-lld7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-clang-analyzer7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.x86_64.rpm rocm-compilersupport7.2-22-6.rocm7.2.0.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpf1faepne')] checks: 32, packages: 19 rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticASTCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticAnalysisCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticAnalysisEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommentCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCrossTUCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCrossTUEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticDriverCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticDriverEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticInstallAPICompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticInstallAPIEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticRefactoringCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticRefactoringEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSerializationCompatIDs.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSerializationEnums.inc rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticTrapCompatIDs.inc > Harmless, but please delete if they're unneeded hipcc7.2.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('nvcc', '%description -l en_US nvcc -> convex') > Ignoring rocm-clang-analyzer7.2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocm-comgr7.2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocm-compilersupport7.2-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocm-device-libs7.2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > Should be fine, the packages are all binary binaries and configs > Macros should be installed into /usr/lib no? Not sure... is it still used? rocm-llvm7.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/lib/LLVMgold.so > I believe this is fine for private libs rocm-clang-analyzer7.2.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-clang-tools-extra7.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-clang7.2.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-clang7.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-clang7.2-runtime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-comgr7.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-compilersupport7.2-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation rocm-lld7.2.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-llvm7.2.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-llvm7.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-llvm7.2-filesystem.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocm-llvm7.2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > Ignored rocm-clang-analyzer7.2.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/lib/libear/ear.c > Make sure this is intentionally, I assume it is rocm-llvm7.2-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/rocm/rocm-7.2/llvm/lib/libLLVM-22.rocm.so > Private lib I think. ignored rocm-device-libs7.2.x86_64: E: devel-dependency rocm-clang7.2-devel 19 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 23 errors, 23 warnings, 104 filtered, 23 badness; has taken 68.8 s -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2450497 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202450497%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
