https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616

Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616

--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Public domain", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 192 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-review/2148616-clBLAS/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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 clBLAS- devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1658880 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: clBLAS-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm clBLAS-devel-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm clBLAS-debuginfo-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm clBLAS-debugsource-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm clBLAS-2.12-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp7jbuihdw')] checks: 31, packages: 5

clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clBLAS-tune clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.5/Tesla_K40/peak_dp.csv /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.0/Tesla_K40/peak_dp.csv clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.5/Tesla_K40/peak_sp.csv /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.0/Tesla_K40/peak_sp.csv 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.1 s

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clBLAS-debuginfo-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm clBLAS-devel-debuginfo-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpgs0sijz8')] checks: 31, packages: 2

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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 checks: 31, packages: 5

clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clBLAS-tune clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.5/Tesla_K40/peak_dp.csv /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.0/Tesla_K40/peak_dp.csv clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.5/Tesla_K40/peak_sp.csv /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.0/Tesla_K40/peak_sp.csv 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 15.5 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/clMathLibraries/clBLAS/archive/cf9113982fdfc994297d372785... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5211309f9f83b0920a816f8a0ead47f26cccfaad0ad9f8651266f74ee676c38f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5211309f9f83b0920a816f8a0ead47f26cccfaad0ad9f8651266f74ee676c38f

Requires -------- clBLAS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.1)(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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

clBLAS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclBLAS.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

clBLAS-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

clBLAS-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- clBLAS: clBLAS clBLAS(x86-64) libclBLAS.so.2()(64bit)

clBLAS-devel: clBLAS-devel clBLAS-devel(x86-64) cmake(clBLAS) cmake(clblas) pkgconfig(clBLAS)

clBLAS-debuginfo: clBLAS-debuginfo clBLAS-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libclBLAS.so.2.12.0-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

clBLAS-debugsource: clBLAS-debugsource clBLAS-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2148616 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, R, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Ruby, SugarActivity, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

$ rpmlint clBLAS-2.12-1.fc38.src.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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 checks: 31, packages: 1

=================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s ===================

$ rpmlint clBLAS-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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 checks: 31, packages: 1

=================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s ===================

$ rpmlint clBLAS-devel-2.12-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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 checks: 31, packages: 1

clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clBLAS-tune clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.5/Tesla_K40/peak_dp.csv /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.0/Tesla_K40/peak_dp.csv clBLAS-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.5/Tesla_K40/peak_sp.csv /usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance/cuBLAS_7.0/Tesla_K40/peak_sp.csv =================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===================

Comments: a) Public domain files Public domain ------------- clBLAS-cf9113982fdfc994297d372785ce76eb80911af2/src/include/md5sum.h clBLAS-cf9113982fdfc994297d372785ce76eb80911af2/src/library/common/md5sum.c Can public domain code be included? b) Build log has messages such as: #pragma message("cl_version.h: CL_TARGET_OPENCL_VERSION is not defined. Defaulting to 300 (OpenCL 3.0)") Is this a reasonable default? There are also a few buffer overflow warnings. Unclear if upstream will take fixes. c) Use cp -p and cp -pr to preserve timestamps d) Maybe the performance information in usr/share/clBLAS/doc/performance can go into a subpackage? e) Use SPDX license identifier Apache-2.0 see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616

--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- a) There are two files which are public domain. The license field in the spec should be updated to reflect this. A breakdown of the licensing should also be added to the spec, ie. indicate the two files which are public domain and indicate rest of files are Apache 2. b1) Can you do Export CL_TARGET_OPENCL_VERSION=3 or Export CL_TARGET_OPENCL_VERSION=2 Maybe some discussion is needed on the mailing list or heterogeneous sig as to reasonable defaults for this.

Other comments:

May want to use the macro %{_docdir} see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RPMMacros

If the tests take a long time, make them conditional, and try some of the samples: https://github.com/clMathLibraries/clBLAS/tree/master/src/samples

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616

Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |

--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Will go through this in the next day or so.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616

--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- https://github.com/codeplaysoftware/sycl-blas may also be interesting