Re: RFS: rocm-compilersupport/6.0+git20231212.4510c28+dfsg-1~exp1 -- ROCm code object manager
Hi Cory,
On 2024-02-06 10:09, Cordell Bloor wrote:> I think I've addressed the
issues raised in my previous mail about
> rocm-compilersupport [1]. The binaries and the questionably licensed
> code have been filtered from the tarball via d/copyright exclusions.
> That addresses points (1) and (3). The rename of
> amd_comgr_get_isa_count@amd_comgr_1_8 to
> amd_comgr_get_isa_count@amd_comgr_2_0 has been reverted, addressing
> point (2).
Looks good.
> The revert of the rename of amd_comgr_get_isa_count prevents any
> breakage as compared to older versions of the library in Debian and
> older versions of the library upstream, but Debian will eventually need
> to reconcile with upstream. I think there would ideally be symbol
> multi-versioning, but Ian Lance Taylor at least states that for version
> scripts, "every symbol can only have one version" [2].My attempts at
> including both the 1.8 and 2.0 symbol names failed, but I don't think we
> necessarily need that to proceed. We will have to do more in the future
> to improve ABI compatibility with upstream, but the rename is sufficient
> to prevent this update from causing ABI breakage.
I agree that this shouldn't prevent an upload for now. I'll file a bug
for us to keep track of this.
> My only real question is whether I handled the d/watch file correctly
> for a git branch watch with version dfsg naming. Lintian complains
> debian-watch-not-mangling-version, but I'm not sure what I'm doing
> wrong. The tags and tarballs all look right to me, but maybe I'm missing
> something.
Basically, it's about which side of the comparison you are modifying.
One side is the version from d/changelog, the other from the source that
is being scanned.
You added +dfsg to the source being scanned, whereas the usual approach
is to remove it from the d/changelog version. I updated this [3].
Great, this also addresses the llvm-toolchain-15 removal, thanks.
Built, uploaded, tagged.
Best,
Christian
[3] https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team/rocm-compilersupport/-/commit/e3cc3d7735e1b8453328ac1939f968398ba420db
Reply to: