Hi Xuanteng and Christian,
Thank you very much, Xuanteng. Your efforts on this update
process are very much appreciated.
On 2024-09-06 09:55, Xuanteng Huang wrote:1. Determine the name of source package There is already a removed package named rocm-llvm in Salsa [2], and I think rocm-llvm is not precise to describe the content as this package doesn’t provide LLVM. Not sure whether rocm-compiler is concrete enough.Side note: from the looks of it, [2] should be removed. It's last change is 4 years ago, it's never been uploaded, and someone stated in the project information that it should be removed. Unless someone objects within a week, I'll make a backup copy, and remove it. I think your reasoning for naming the package rocm-compiler is sound, but let's see if there are other proposals.
The removed src:rocm-llvm package is the same upstream repository
as the proposed src:rocm-compiler package. I don't think it would
be confusing to have them named the same. They are the same source
upstream. It's confusing to have them separate downstream.
The upstream repository is the AMD ROCm fork of LLVM and I would be tempted to name it rocm-llvm even if we've decided to strip out all but the unique components of the ROCm fork.
IDK. It's bike-shedding, but that's my opinion.
2. File concflicts of binary packages Intuitively, there will be some file conflicts between the binary packages generated from the holistic new source and the original separated source packages (e.g., /usr/bin/hipcc). At least we should “rename” the binary packages and declare the conflict relations between them.
Are we not able to have the new source package provide a newer version of same binary package? If the last version of src:rocm-compilersupport that we've uploaded provides libamd-comgr2 6.0+git20231212.4510c28+dfsg-3, can we just have src:rocm-compiler provide libamd-comgr2 6.1.2?
Sincerely, Cory Bloor