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

Re: Packaging rocRAND

Hi Cory,

Cordell Bloor, on 2022-08-27:
> The current upstream sources in the debian repo [1] are based on ROCm 5.0.0.
> Support for an FHS-compatible layout came in ROCm 5.2 (when building with
> updating the rocRAND sources. The release candidate branch for ROCm 5.3 has
> been created [2], but there's almost no changes for rocRAND [3] so there's
> no need to wait.

Thanks for checking and the pointers as always, I also see ROCm
5.2.3 is out and most of the toolchain maybe welcome a refresh.
A few weeks ago, I begun a push of some of the lower level
packages until one caused a rocm-hipamd build failure, so
upgrade might continue in experimental for the time being.

> The current version of hipcc is an experimental package is based on ROCm
> 5.0.0, but I believe that should be sufficient for building rocRAND from
> ROCm 5.2. As such, all dependencies required for packaging rocrand are
> currently available and packaged. Though, I suppose that rocrand would have
> to be experimental because hipcc is experimental.

hipcc 5.0 has been lingering in experimental for some time.
Maybe it is a good time to put it in more hands.  I consider
doing an upload to unstable tomorrow or this weekend depending
on the amount of tasks I have to catch up after vacations.  To
day, rocm-hipamd builds alright in unstable, and artifacts are
perfectly capable of running rocrand 5.0 test suite from this
evening's quick check.

> [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team/rocrand/-/tree/upstream/5.0.0
> [2]:
> https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/rocRAND/tree/release/rocm-rel-5.3
> [3]: https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/rocRAND/compare/rocm-5.2.0...release/rocm-rel-5.3

Have a nice day,  :)
Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu>
Fingerprint:  8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
On air: Six by six - Yearning to Fly

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: