Re: Question about how to handle HIP vs hipamd
Hello,
Jeremy and I met with the HIP development team and we discussed a number
of options for simplifying the hipamd build process. I think everyone is
on the same page that the status quo is less than ideal, though there
was some disagreement as to the best path forward.
The preference of the HIP team is to join ROCclr, ROCm-OpenCL-Runtime,
hipamd and HIP into a single repo. They do not want to maintain a stable
ROCclr interface and argue that it is an implementation detail of the
AMD HIP and OpenCL runtimes. It is not designed for use outside those
components. While this was not the first choice of solution for Jeremy
or myself, I strongly believe that development teams should have the
right to choose the manner in which they work, as long as they fulfill
the needs of their users.
The question, therefore, is whether this solution _is_ acceptable to
users. I would imagine that the proposed runtime monorepo would be
acceptable to Debian, given that it would leave the rocm-hipamd repo [1]
largely unchanged in structure. The most significant difference would be
that it would no longer be a multi-upstream tarball source—there would
be a single upstream tarball rather than four.
I don't think anything is going to happen very quickly on this front,
but please do let me know if you have any concerns.There have been no
hard decisions made yet and we're still collecting feedback from various
stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Cory Bloor
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team/rocm-hipamd/
Reply to: