[Bug 2090823] New: Review Request: rocm-opencl - ROCm OpenCL Runtime
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823
Bug ID: 2090823
Summary: Review Request: rocm-opencl - ROCm OpenCL Runtime
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/rocm-opencl.spec
SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/rocm-opencl-5.1.3-1.fc37.src.rpm
Description:
ROCm OpenCL language runtime.
Supports offline and in-process/in-memory compilation.
Fedora Account System Username: mystro256
COPR Build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mystro256/rocm-opencl/build/4443706/
Notes:
- Full disclosure, I am an AMD employee, but this package is not a product of
AMD, nor is it any way affiliated with my employment. I am working ROCm Fedora
packages purely out of my own interest.
- ROCclr is a middleware library that isn't supposed to be shared since there's
no ABI/API guarentees. It's only used by two ROCm components: OpenCL and HIP.
If you dig through my COPR history, you can see I was working on unbundling
ROCclr related bits for HIP, but after working with upstream over email, I
think I can put that on hold for now. HIP has a lot of packaging related
issues, so I'm thinking to start with OpenCL for now and look into packaging
HIP further down the road. There's a thread on the Debian mailing list, as I
was working with them to find a mutually viable solution for ROCclr:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ai/2022/05/msg00007.html
- I'm not sure what to do with cltrace, as it's more of a library for
debugging. I could put it in its own package, or exclude it altogether.
Eitherway, I added a soversion to avoid an rpmlint error, but after talking to
upstream, they don't want to add this since they don't guarentee ABI. I figure
using the major.minor version as the version is pretty safe since patch version
bumps (e.g. 5.1.0 to 5.1.3) don't tend to contain breaking changes.
- OpenCL 2.2 headers are bundled because it doesn't compile against latest. I
think this would be a nice thing to fix, but might take some work and upstream
involvement.
- 32bit doesn't work, nor is it very valuable. I added an ExclusiveArch based
on the kernel support required for rocm-opencl.
--
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=2090823
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 1877809] New: Review Request: python-molecule-docker - molecule
Docker plugin
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877809
Bug ID: 1877809
Summary: Review Request: python-molecule-docker - molecule
Docker plugin
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: chedi.toueiti(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
1 year, 10 months