RFC: Adding an X-ROCm-Built-For field to packages targeting ISAs
Hi all,
I would like to propose that all binary packages built for AMD GPU ISAs
document those ISAs in an X-ROCm-Built-For field.
For example:
X-ROCm-Built-For: gfx900 gfx1030 gfx1200 ...
I do mean *all* packages, so including all our reverse dependencies.
Motivation
==========
This information would be part of the Packages index, so we can
trivially determine the ISA support level for all packages in the
Archive touching ROCm.
We would use this list to determine which packages need an update upon
introduction/removal of ISA support.
If those packages build using rocm-target-isa [1], the recently uploaded
tool [2] which centrally manages ISAs, then all of this is trivial: we
just update the list, and schedule binNMUs for all affected a packages.
Zero maintainer interaction.
We could also use this list to "bridge" back to our CI. Does a package
pass all its tests on the listed ISAs -> otherwise, report a bug.
Implementation
==============
This is also trivial. This [3] is all it took to convert rocrand to
(1) Use rocm-target-isa
(2) Add the X-ROCm-Built-For field, populated by (1).
Discussion
==========
X-ROCm-Built-For could be too generic (built for what?). OTOH, this
field doesn't need to mean much outside of the Debian ROCm Team. For
other packages, it is just important for them to know to add it.
X-ROCm-Built-For should be added to binary package(s). I thought it
would be sufficient to add this to main library packages. It's
debatable whether this should also be added to -dev packages. I
myself don't think this would contribute much, other than extra
maintenance work.
Best,
Christian
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ai/2025/06/msg00079.html
[2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2025/06/msg01173.html
[3]: https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team/rocrand/-/commit/cd1a57a3527e7e9c521063545ab516b288d05cad
Reply to: