Re: RFS: rocm-device-libs/5.7~git20231212.5a852ed-1~exp1 -- AMD specific device-side language runtime libraries
Hi Cory,
On 2024-01-05 11:53, Cordell Bloor wrote:
> I've updated rocm-device-libs to build using clang-17. The LLVM IR is
> only guaranteed to be stable within an LLVM major version, so changing
> the compiler is a breaking change.
>
> I've renamed the binary package from rocm-device-libs to
> rocm-device-libs-17 to reflect that the new binary package is intended
> exclusively for use with LLVM 17. That was true of rocm-device-libs and
> LLVM 15 previously, but it was not reflected in the name. This will
> require a trip through NEW, but I think it's the right thing to do.
bin:rocm-device-libs has one reverse dependency, bin:hipcc.
So I guess the plan is that we eventually upgrade that to depend on
bin:rocm-device-libs-17, right?
> In discussing this change previously, I'd proposed splitting out a new
> source package, but after further consideration I deemed it simpler to
> just drop the old rocm-device-libs binary package. We don't have the
> manpower to maintain more than one toolchain anyway.
I concur.
Even with a single package, I *think* we should be fine without a formal
transition. Unless I'm greviously misremembering, bin:rocm-device-libs
will stay around until bin:hipcc no longer depends on it, even if
src:rocm-device-libs is updated.
> All tests are passing thanks to Jeremy Newton's fixes. The only question
> I have is with regards to the d/copyright file. The upstream license
> file states that the copyright is "2014-2016, Advanced Micro Devices,
> Inc." but the library has clearly been updated in every year from 2017
> to 2023. Every maintainer for this package seems to have gone by the
> stated copyright date in the repo's license file, so that's how I left
> it. In any case, I'll raise the issue upstream, because AMD should
> update the date regardless.
To be honest, I was never entirely sure about this myself, but I think
the lesser of two evils is simply quoting upstream's copyright assertion
verbatim.
> rocm-device-libs (5.7~git20231212.5a852ed-1~exp1) experimental; urgency=medium
^^^
A ~git suffix is somewhat unusual as ~ sorts before:
$ dpkg --compare-versions 5.7~git20231212.5a852ed '<<' 5.7; echo $?
0
With git, usually, it's +git to indicate that this is based on the 5.7
tag, plus some git commits added on top of that, for example to track
bleeding edge.
Was the ~git intentional? I admit to not having checked upstream too
deeply on this, so apologies if this is noise on my end.
(You mention in a commit that we are tracking the release/17.x branch
now because that's the one basing on stable LLVM releases; that part was
clear.)
Best,
Christian
Reply to: