[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


I went through and answered a few things things I know off the top of my head.

On 2021-12-20 9:33 a.m., Maxime Chambonnet wrote:
What decides what is in the ROCm manifest (default.xml in ROCm repo)
and what is not?
Everything that is a part of the official release goes in default.xml.
Comgr : build errors that seem to have been patched, but not yet released. not all #include "llvm/MC/TargetRegistry.h" does not compile against llvm-13 testing
Ugly hack works
IIRC the AMD Clang in ROCm 4.5 was based on the clang-14 development branch. I think that's just a file that was moved between llvm-13 and llvm-14.
Is it welcome to patch out the CPackDeb infrastructure so as to get
in the Debian way? CPackDeb feels very limited compared to the specialized
packaging tooling that Debian have.
You're welcome to do so in Debian, but I would be very surprised if those patches would be accepted upstream. Is it somehow causing problems?
### hipcc
hip currently uses a vendored hipcc binary in hip/bin.
Is building hipcc (repo not in the manifest) required by Debian?
It compiles fine AFAIK.

The hipcc repo was created about a month ago. It has never been part of an official release. The original hipcc script in the HIP repo was written in perl. This new hipcc program is written in C++. I wouldn't worry about this until it's actually released.


Cory Bloor

Reply to: