Re: rocm-all renaming
Hi Christian,
On 2025-09-02 16:01, Christian BAYLE wrote:
I intent to package ROCm from
https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm
so retitled RFP to ITP - https://bugs.debian.org/1113780
It is mostly used to generate
https://rocmdocs.amd.com/ using Sphinx and rocm-docs-core
I think I'll provide an offine generated version
and probably a way to regenerate online
It's mostly done, but it requires two more sphinx
extensions, i'll upload too :
(ITP - #1113792) https://bugs.debian.org/1113792 sphinxcontrib-runcmd
(ITP - #1113780) https://bugs.debian.org/1113780
sphinxcontrib.datatemplates
Thank you very much for your efforts on this. I gave up on rocm-doc when
I ran into the missing sphinxcontrib.datatemplates dependency.
I thought it might also make sense to provide the rocm-dev and
rocm-tests packages from src:rocm, although there's no technical reason
why that would need to be the case. It just seemed to make sense from an
organizational standpoint as src:rocm is a superproject of all other
ROCm projects.
I was also almost ready to upload src:rocm myself and I had just been
debating if it made any sense to do so despite the binary packages I'd
defined not actually using any of the upstream sources. If you have the
rocm-doc build working, then that makes my concern moot.
If you think it makes sense for src:rocm to provide rocm-dev and
rocm-tests in addition to rocm-doc, then perhaps we can merge your
version of the package and my version of the package [1]. Alternatively,
I could move rocm-dev and rocm-tests into their own source package and
come up with some other name for it.
Sincerely,
Cory Bloor
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/cgmb/rocm
Reply to: