https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2450497



--- Comment #4 from [email protected] ---
SRPM URL:
https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-compilersupport7.2-22-9.rocm7.2.1.fc45.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rocm-compilersupport7.2.spec

An update of the base rocm-compilersupport package with issues raised here,
changed there.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-compilersupport/c/bc5337f71e59813fafdd40ca0de46370b1a745df?branch=rawhide

  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

Here is the provides

%package -n %{rocm_clang_name}-runtime-devel
Summary:       The ROCm compiler runtime
Requires:      %{rocm_llvm_name}-filesystem = %{version}-%{release}
Provides:      %{rocm_clang_name}-runtime-static = %{version}-%{release}

Clang was the only user, here is the change

%package -n %{rocm_clang_name}
Summary:       The ROCm compiler
Requires:      git
Requires:      python3
Requires:      %{rocm_clang_name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires:      %{rocm_clang_name}-runtime-static = %{version}-%{release}

- 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

Here is the breakdown
License:        (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA) AND NCSA AND MIT
# llvm is Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA
# /amd breakdown
#
# /amd/comgr/*
# Apache-2.0, amd/comgr/LICENSE.txt
#
# /amd/hipcc/*
# MIT, amd/hipcc/LICENSE.txt
#
# /amd/device-libs/*
# NSCA, amd/device-libs/LICENSE.TXT

- %{rocm_llvm_name}-libs can be installed without a license file if libcxx
is not enabled. Just add a %license macro to fix this

%files -n %{rocm_llvm_name}-libs
%license llvm/LICENSE.TXT

- Missing version for requires on other subpackages in this spec. See
below, this is a "should" item

Fixed many places.

- Patch 6 should have a link to upstream commit

# backport
#
https://github.com/ROCm/llvm-project/commit/23f010f1ab09263d79027c70d5f4cddfe0055ca9
Patch6:         0001-SemaConcept.cpp-fix-MSVC-not-all-control-paths-retur.patch

> Harmless, but please delete if they're unneeded
hipcc7.2.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('nvcc', '%description -l en_US nvcc ->
convex')

changed description to be

%description -n %{hipcc_name}
hipcc will pass-through options to the target compiler. The tools calling hipcc
must ensure the compiler options are appropriate for the target compiler.

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
Tried, there are needed. Added this comment

# rocm-clang-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticASTCompatIDs.inc
# Removing these causea a problem later
# In file included from
/usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticIDs.h:103:
# /usr/lib64/rocm/llvm/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonInterface.inc:22:10:
fatal error: 'clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonEnums.inc' file not found
   22 | #include "clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonEnums.inc"

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?

macros are extensively used in the other package building.


-- 
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%23c4

-- 
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to