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

Re: rocprim and rocthrust copyright review



Hi Cory,

Cordell Bloor, on 2022-10-14:
> 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 think in such case I would retitle the bug entry and simply
highlight the Package name change; the important thing is to
avoid duplicate work in case someone else checks for wnpp bugs.

> > 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.

Thanks for the clarification, there are maybe one or two other
headers-only libraries I am aware of, and had a quick look at
libsimde-dev from the source package simde.  It does not expose
the API version in the package name.  That probably simplifies
package maintenance and avoids excessive round trips in the New
queue, but if you think the API makes sense, I would be okay
with it.

> 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

Have a nice day,  :)
-- 
Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu>
Fingerprint:  8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from my alarm clock.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: