Re: Should we include the LLVM code into the source package for comgr, device-libs and hipcc?
Hi Xuanteng,
On 2024-08-28 07:59, Xuanteng Huang wrote:
> I’m attempting to update ROCm to upstream version 6.1.2.
Great!
> Note in the upstream repository [1], they are maintained as standalone projects, i.e., they can be built individually in the absence of the overall LLVM codebase. And it’s reasonable for us to choose the official existing LLVM in Debian to build them, instead of using the LLVM forked by AMD.
I agree.
> So here comes the question: should we include the “useless” large LLVM codebase in the src:rocm-llvm package? As we prefer to use the Debian LLVM rather than AMD LLVM to build the binary packages, can we just strip them out of the source package and keep only the “amd” directory?
I think if we're not going to use it, we might as well strip it from the
source. Not only will that make for a smaller source package, we'll
avoid lots of d/copyright work.
Besides, for the LLVM team, they keep only the “debian” folder rather
than the entire LLVM codebase [3] (not sure why they do so). So we
should consider the organization of the src:rocm-llvm package (or even
its name).
This used do be a much bigger thing in the past, especially when SVN was
still the dominant SCM and before uscan could do d/changelog filtering.
Here, I guess it's because it keeps the repo and diffs compact? Note
that [3] keeps the debian directories for all LLVM versions, so having
each release in there would really bloat it.
d/README [4] explains how this is supposed to be used.
Not our concern though, I guess, as we just need the binaries.
Best,
Christian
> [3]: https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-llvm-team/llvm-toolchain
[4]: https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-llvm-team/llvm-toolchain/-/blob/snapshot/debian/README?ref_type=heads
Reply to: