On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:07:10PM -0000, Jeremy Newton wrote: I think that'd be awesome -- and those internal clean-ups are really appreciated. Having the infrastructure there is nice, but I'm also curious: are there any application-level tools that are in Fedora Linux already or which could be packaged, to serve as a showcase for the technology? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; Fedora Project Leader

Am 17.12.21 um 02:39 schrieb Jeremy Newton: Also I'd be interested in using pytorch (installed via pip) on my AMD system. Years ago when Tom Stellard started to package rocm things for Fedora I tried to review some of the packages but found it really hard to tweak the sources/build process to produce something acceptable to Fedora. I'd love to see this being improved so I could use my GPU for smaller compute tasks. Felix

I maintain the now-deprecated pure-Python “rocm-smi” package, and I’ve looked a few times at packaging rocm_smi_lib[1] to replace it, but the kinds of distro-friendliness issues you mention, e.g. [2][3], have so far been more than I was willing to work around. I was also partially dissuaded by a general sense (which may or may not be accurate) that the main ROCm project’s issue tracker is dominated on both the filing and the responding side by high-volume end-user support questions, while the individual component projects have mostly technical bug reports but don’t always seem to have anyone reliably looking at them. I’m happy to collaborate on work in this area as I am able, particularly—from a selfish perspective—if it leads to a maintainable rocm_smi_lib without too many downstream hacks, or if it eventually enables GPGPU in Darktable and/or BOINC without proprietary or unpackaged software. I think a lot of people would be *very* excited about that, if it is possible. – Ben Beasley (FAS music) [1] https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/rocm_smi_lib/ [2] https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/rocm_smi_lib/issues/84 [3] https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/rocm_smi_lib/issues/83 On 12/16/21 12:07, Jeremy Newton wrote: > Full disclosure, I am both a Fedora packager and an employee at AMD. > To be clear, the following is not at all endorsed by my employer; my interest and use of Fedora is purely a personal hobby and I would like to keep it that way. > > There has been a recent effort to step up Debian packaging of ROCm, and would like to see if anyone has some interest in expanding the Fedora ROCm packages. > > I see there's a few packages already, and I'm hoping to help with some internal processes to make ROCm more distro friendly, such as better FHS compliance, clearer licensing, etc. > Anyone interested? I would be happy to try to help or review package requests :) > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >

On 12/16/21 09:07, Jeremy Newton wrote: Would you be interested in maintaining the existing packages? I could use some help keeping them up-to-date with the latest versions. -Tom

I’m happy, in principle, to help co-maintain ROCm packages. However, before becoming a co-maintainer, I always like to take a look over packages and make sure I’m comfortable with them, i.e.: - I can reconcile them with packaging guidelines - I think I can fix most things that are likely to break - I have any special hardware required to fully test and debug them Do you have a list of the existing ROCm-related packages that you have in mind? – Ben On 12/17/21 13:41, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:37:16AM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 12/16/21 09:07, Jeremy Newton wrote: >>> Full disclosure, I am both a Fedora packager and an employee at AMD. >>> To be clear, the following is not at all endorsed by my employer; my interest and use of Fedora is purely a personal hobby and I would like to keep it that way. >>> >>> There has been a recent effort to step up Debian packaging of ROCm, and would like to see if anyone has some interest in expanding the Fedora ROCm packages. >>> >>> I see there's a few packages already, and I'm hoping to help with some internal processes to make ROCm more distro friendly, such as better FHS compliance, clearer licensing, etc. >>> Anyone interested? I would be happy to try to help or review package requests :) >> >> Would you be interested in maintaining the existing packages? I could use >> some help keeping them up-to-date with the latest versions. >> > I'm also interested in helping package more of ROCm, but ideally > everyone interested in this should co-maintain. > > Best regards, > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >

Everything is packaged in that I can see except PyTorch, OCD and "up streamed Linux Kernel support"? Thoughts?

It would be nice to have the latest version of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-runtime also. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877523

Quick update, I've made some new package reviews: ROCm-Device-Libs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044664 ROCm-CompilerSupport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045955 ROCm-Device-Libs is needed to update "rocm-runtime" and for ROCm-CompilerSupport. ROCm-CompilerSupport is needed to allow packaging "ROCclr" which is a common layer used for HIP and OpenCL. Hopefully, that can get the ball rolling a bit. I also have made pull requests to update hsakmt and rocm-runtime (blocked by missing ROCm-Device-Libs package): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hsakmt/pull-request/6 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-runtime/pull-request/7