https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)fastmail.com&gt; --- RPMLint Ouput: I assume this is due to librocclr.a, see notes above. If you see something else I missed, please let me know. I'm actually not quite sure about these. If someone has some experience or suggestions, please feel free to chime in. A manpage would be nice, but not required. Ignored, the only documentation upstream provides is a README for building/installing from source. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Tom Stellard <tstellar(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tstellar(a)redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Tom Stellard <tstellar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Is RPMLint meant to be run on the debuginfo packages? From what I can tell, the Zuul CI we use doesn't run RPMLint on debuginfo packages. It also doesn't make sense to warn about unstripped debuginfo files, since that is all the data take from object files when the are stripped. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar(a)redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- A new rpmlint start to process debuginfo packages, but nobody tuned rpmlint to process them correctly or rpkg to skip them (bug #2052451). Please ignore them. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; --- Hello Jeremy, Here is the review: From the spec file: How about replacing BuildRequires: numactl-devel BuildRequires: ocl-icd-devel by BuildRequires: pkgconfig(numa) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ocl-icd) Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Comment: maybe add clang in this case, it seems the fedora-review is out of date. - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [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", "MIT License", "Khronos License". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luya/Documents/fedora-review/2090823-rocm- opencl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rocm- clinfo [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- rocm-opencl: /usr/lib64/libamdocl64.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/ROCclr/archive/refs/tags/rocm-5.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ddee63cdc6515c90bab89572b13e1627b145916cb8ede075ef8446cbb83f0a48 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ddee63cdc6515c90bab89572b13e1627b145916cb8ede075ef8446cbb83f0a48 https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCm-OpenCL-Runtime/archive/refs/tag... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44a7fac721abcd93470e1a7e466bdea0c668c253dee93e4f1ea9a72dbce4ba31 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44a7fac721abcd93470e1a7e466bdea0c668c253dee93e4f1ea9a72dbce4ba31 Requires -------- rocm-opencl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(rocm-opencl) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libhsa-runtime64.so.1()(64bit) libhsa-runtime64.so.1(ROCR_1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnuma.so.1()(64bit) libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) ocl-icd opencl-filesystem rocm-comgr rtld(GNU_HASH) rocm-opencl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcltrace.so.5.1()(64bit) rocm-opencl(x86-64) rocm-clinfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rocm-opencl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rocm-opencl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rocm-opencl: bundled(opencl-headers) config(rocm-opencl) libamdocl64.so()(64bit) libamdocl64.so(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libamdocl64.so(OPENCL_1.1)(64bit) libamdocl64.so(OPENCL_1.2)(64bit) libamdocl64.so(OPENCL_2.0)(64bit) libamdocl64.so(OPENCL_2.1)(64bit) libcltrace.so.5.1()(64bit) libcltrace.so.5.1(CLTRACE_1.0)(64bit) rocm-opencl rocm-opencl(x86-64) rocm-opencl-devel: rocm-opencl-devel rocm-opencl-devel(x86-64) rocm-clinfo: rocm-clinfo rocm-clinfo(x86-64) rocm-opencl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libamdocl64.so-5.1.3-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcltrace.so.5.1.3-5.1.3-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) rocm-opencl-debuginfo rocm-opencl-debuginfo(x86-64) rocm-opencl-debugsource: rocm-opencl-debugsource rocm-opencl-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-opencl -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-2cee071a16 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2cee071a16` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2cee071a16 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823