Bug#1001712: [Pkg-opencl-devel] ROCm RFP
Dear all, Looks like there are already two ROCm related packages in experimental, courtesy of the "ROCm Team": https://packages.debian.org/experimental/rocm-smi https://packages.debian.org/experimental/rocminfo https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=team%2Brocm-team%40tracker.debian.org Do you think those ROCm packages will eventually trickle down to Bullseye + backports in order to replace mesa-opencl-icd and libclc-amdgcn ? Best regards, Samuel > Blame it on my poor knowledge of Debian, and the siloed internal search > engine... I started today looking seriously into packaging ROCm, and > after 8 hours discovered that there is a dedicated team, slightly hidden > under the debian-ai mailing list : https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team . > > The team have at least pushed one component of ROCm into stable already : > https://packages.debian.org/source/stable/roct-thunk-interface. (old > version, 3.7, current is 4.5, 5 announced) > > A conversation between an AMD engineer and the Debian ROCm team started > here : https://lists.debian.org/debian-ai/2021/03/msg9.html > >> Would it be useful to place these packages under the umbrella of >> Maintainer: Debian OpenCL Maintainers >> >> There is more in ROCm than just OpenCL, but I don't know a better >> fitting team ... > > I have no clue how this could be better setup, between teams that deal > with very similar issues. > > There was no RFP nor ITP for the overall rocm, there is one now. > Guess I will play catch up, and see if I can help! > > BR, Maxime > > > ___ > Pkg-opencl-devel mailing list > pkg-opencl-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-opencl-devel >
Bug#1001712: [Pkg-opencl-devel] ROCm RFP
Blame it on my poor knowledge of Debian, and the siloed internal search engine... I started today looking seriously into packaging ROCm, and after 8 hours discovered that there is a dedicated team, slightly hidden under the debian-ai mailing list : https://salsa.debian.org/rocm-team . The team have at least pushed one component of ROCm into stable already : https://packages.debian.org/source/stable/roct-thunk-interface. (old version, 3.7, current is 4.5, 5 announced) A conversation between an AMD engineer and the Debian ROCm team started here : https://lists.debian.org/debian-ai/2021/03/msg9.html Would it be useful to place these packages under the umbrella of Maintainer: Debian OpenCL Maintainers There is more in ROCm than just OpenCL, but I don't know a better fitting team ... I have no clue how this could be better setup, between teams that deal with very similar issues. There was no RFP nor ITP for the overall rocm, there is one now. Guess I will play catch up, and see if I can help! BR, Maxime
Bug#1001712: [Pkg-opencl-devel] ROCm RFP
On 14/12/2021 20.10, maxzor wrote: For your information, I just opened this RFP : https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1001712 . If anybody is already on the job that's great, Not that I'd know. if not I might gather the > energy to withstand the maintainer trial :) I might spend some time reviewing and sponsoring ... Would it be useful to place these packages under the umbrella of Maintainer: Debian OpenCL Maintainers There is more in ROCm than just OpenCL, but I don't know a better fitting team ... Given that there are third-party Debian packages out in the wild, we should ensure that upgrades from third-party packages to official Debian packages (and maybe vice versa) work smoothly. Which means packaging updates probably need to be propagated back to the third-party packaging. (An *no* use of epochs to be newer than the third-party packages!) (I had used the third-party ROCm packages on a Debian system in the past, and IIRC it worked surprisingly well after I figured out that we already had a recent enough kernel to not need the out-of-tree kernel module bits.) Andreas
