Hi Maxime, M. Zhou, on 2022-02-03: > On Fri, 2022-02-04 at 01:27 +0100, Maxime Chambonnet wrote: > > On 2/3/22 23:45, M. Zhou wrote: > > > On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 22:55 +0100, Étienne Mollier wrote: > > > > I'm hopeful to have time to make a final review and upload of > > > > the rocm-smi-lib in the weekend, I'm also fine if someone else > > > > beats me at it in the meantime. I don't claim rocr-runtime as I > > > > believe Mo Zhou has more experience on this one, and leave > > > > rocminfo open for claims too for the moment. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your contributions! > > > > Thank you Etienne, no big pressure - in that it is not a matter > > of days/weeks is it! Thanks for pointing that out, I must admit I'm losing the battle for getting regular free cycles lately. I brought a couple of modifications to the repository, so you can refer to the git log if you are curious. Hereafter are some of the items I thought might be worth being more verbose about. d/control: I trimmed down the doxygen LaTeX dependencies to doxygen-latex. If you're worried of your footprint on public mirrors due to continuously downloading the same heavy packages set again and again, you can investigate the use of a caching proxy for the packages. I use apt-cacher-ng, which has its quirks, but there are other approaches. d/rules: git checkout is commented out so no harm done, but note the package should not be assumed to be built from it's source tree with VCS metadata. #991822 is a rather extreme example of what could go wrong. d/copyright: this is a rather detailed d/copyright file. Maybe it is possible to simplify it a bit by relying more on wildcards? It looks otherwise accurate. d/roc-smi.1: in the Copyright section, you may want to append that you wrapped up the present manual page for the Debian project (and that it is made available under Expat license if I trust the copyright file, and can be reused for other purposes). The plain "Copyright: AMD All rights reserved" without further notice makes this uneasy otherwise. d/p/0001-Merged-python-rsmi-bindings-into-the-main-file.patch: I'm a bit concerned by the mean used for inlining the functions into roc-smi. The patch will require careful maintenance at each upstream version to make sure it is appropriately updated to mirror the content of the initial file rsmiBindings.py. Not sure that will do good to the package in the long run. I haven't readied for upload yet in case you wish to bring some changes. Also please, feel free to point out anything I might have misinterpreted; I believe I can easily neglect details that actually have quite some importance. Have a good evening, :) -- Étienne Mollier <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
Description: PGP signature