Re: rocprim and rocthrust copyright review
I appreciate your guidance, Étienne! Thanks for bearing with me as I
learn the ropes.
On 2022-10-13 13:25, Étienne Mollier wrote:
I have a minor nitpick: you may want to refer to the source
package name (rocprim, rocthrust), as one single source may
produce several binary packages.
Opps. Should I close my existing ITP for rocprim [1] and file a new one
with the proper source package name? Or maybe amend the existing bug?
I also see the control files of rocprim and rocthrust are
limited to producing lib*-dev packages for the moment, which
normally store only development headers, so I suppose the
part of the packaging about routing files to the different
locations is still work in progress.
rocprim and rocthrust are header-only libraries, so that's all there is.
The only binaries are for the tests, benchmarks and example programs. I
didn't plan on packaging those, but I have configured the package to
build the tests and run them in dh_auto_test.
In any case, rocthrust is now at the point where I think it just needs
an ITP and copyright review. I'll next be turning my attention to
rocsparse and rocfft, which both have some minor issues in building
their tests. Those are shared libraries and will involve multiple binary
packages besides the development headers, so I will definitely review
the reference material you suggested.
Sincerely,
Cory Bloor
[1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1021695
Reply to: