[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|2 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2 [Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #35 from Nicolas Chauvet 2015-01-11 13:23:49 CET --- I'm closing this review since nvidia is providing it's own repository: https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-downloads Please avoid mindlessly producing conflicting packages with this "upstream" repository. Or at least engage with nvidia on their forum if you beleive there is a need for packaging fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #34 from Orion Poplawski 2013-05-07 21:44:11 CEST --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/cudatoolkit.spec This is now version 5.0.35 update 1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #33 from Orion Poplawski 2012-07-05 19:19:44 CEST --- Created attachment 924 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=924 cudatoolkit spec 5.0.7 Haven't really tested this out yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Knut Jørgen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||knutjorg...@yahoo.no --- Comment #32 from Knut Jørgen 2012-07-05 09:37:30 CEST --- There is a new Cuda 5 on the horizon that is compatible with Fedora 16. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #31 from Orion Poplawski 2011-12-15 19:45:10 CET --- My attempt at an update is here: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/cudatoolkit.spec * Fri Dec 9 2011 Orion Poplawski - 4.1.21-1 - Update to 4.1.21 (RC2) I have to install the resulting package with --nodeps because of missing libcuda.so.1. See bug 2083. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #30 from Fabien Archambault 2011-12-15 16:22:05 CET --- Hi, I found this announce: http://developer.nvidia.com/content/cuda-platform-source-release Will it help adding the cuda implementation within the repositories? PS: this is also to bump to know if updates are available... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #29 from NicolasChauvet 2011-04-12 23:24:49 --- Given this last problem with the version of the compiler, we would start working on cuda 4.0 even if it's at -RC2 stage. I'm preparing an update of the related driver at 270xx from at least F-14 and later. I would prefer using /usr/lib/cuda even for lib64 arch given that the compiler can produce x86_32 code, once the required libraries are present. That been said, we might need other tweak. IIRC, there is a configuration file the compiler checks for the internal headers and library path. Is it there still ? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
--- Comment #28 from Orion Poplawski 2011-04-07 23:47:25
---
Alright, here's another attempt.
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/cudatoolkit.spec
* Thu Apr 7 2011 Orion Poplawski - 4.0.13-1
- Update to 4.0.13 (RC2)
- Install primarily to %%{_libdir}cuda
- Add computeprof subpackage
- Add libs-32bit package on x86_64 for 32-bit libraries
- Moves documentation to doc subpackage
Probably should also ship a .desktop file for computeprof.
One fun thing:
make[2]: Entering directory
`/export/home/orion/NVIDIA_GPU_Computing_SDK/C/src/oceanFFT'
oceanFFT.cpp:630:6: warning: unused parameter ‘value’
In file included from /usr/lib/cuda/include/cuda_runtime.h:59:0,
from :0:
/usr/lib/cuda/include/host_config.h:82:2: error: #error -- unsupported GNU
version! gcc 4.5 and up are not supported!
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #27 from NicolasChauvet 2011-04-05 11:03:42 --- (In reply to comment #26) > This is the spec I'm using these days: > > http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/cudatoolkit.spec There are two major issues with this spec: - /usr/share/cuda is all wrong for binary content. It should be /usr/lib/cuda instead (no matter of the library architecture givent that's a compiler and see next issue). - Removing alternative library architecture is wrong, it is expectable to build native x86_32 code on a x86_64 OS. gcc can do that, same for the cuda compiler. And givent that the package will not be multilib 'naturally' because it doesn't have a -devel subpacakge, I expect it will be easier to have a compat32 subpackage instead. Eventually, -There there is a need to have a look on how to package additional cuda libraries (either compiled with this toolkit, or pre-built for a given version of cuda). -rpm macros should allow to ease integration with the cuda -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #26 from Orion Poplawski 2011-04-05 01:01:00 --- This is the spec I'm using these days: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/cudatoolkit.spec Sorry, no changelog entries :( -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Pete Stieber changed: What|Removed |Added CC||develo...@toyon.com --- Comment #25 from Pete Stieber 2011-03-31 00:06:14 --- 3.2 is the latest. http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda_3_2_downloads.html#Linux Has this been dropped? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Knut Jørgen changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #494 is|0 |1 obsolete|| --- Comment #24 from Knut Jørgen 2010-09-27 17:01:52 --- Created an attachment (id=500) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=500) Nvidia cuda spec update to version 3.1 Nvidia cuda spec update to version 3.1 -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #23 from Neal Becker 2010-09-26 17:10:19 --- Are you sure you want to go with RC? I wanted to install cuda + pycuda. When I tried the RC I got compile errors, but using the current release built all successfully. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #22 from Knut Jørgen 2010-09-26 13:33:33 --- Created an attachment (id=494) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=494) Nvidia cuda spec update to version 3.2RC It includes a spec files that is update to the lates version of cuda which is compatible with Fedora13. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
--- Comment #21 from Michal Ambroz 2010-03-29 02:28:29 ---
Hello,
I have tried to do the formal review of the current src.rpm and spec file
an here are the results.
Key:
- = not applicable
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Name coresponds to the upstream tarball name
[X] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- rpmlint suggests not mixing spaces and tabs for indentation
- second copy of man pages copied to the doc
- documents have got 8MB - it would be worth of thinking about the doc package
- include files in /usr/include/cudart should probably be in separate -headers
package (precedens could be for example stdio.h which is in package
glibc-headers)
- a lot of cuda tools is not packaged (nvcc, preprocessors, tpx assembler
etc.), just binaries from open64 project are in the package so the installation
of this package will be much different in comparision of installaton of the
upstream package.
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: FC12
[!] Rpmlint output: attached
- some formal minor issues with the spec file found, duplicit man pages
[X] Buildroot is correct
[!] Package licensed - free to distribute if binaries are not modified
Binaries are stripped during build of the package - this is not permitted by
the license.
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[X] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded: all but i685 and x86_64 (resp. i386 and x86_64 for http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #20 from Michal Ambroz 2010-03-29 00:24:21 --- Created an attachment (id=397) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=397) rpmlint for cuda toolkit rpmlint cudatoolkit-2.1-3.fc12.src.rpm cudatoolkit-2.1-3.fc12.i586.rpm cudatoolkit-libs-2.1-3.fc12.i586.rpm cudatoolkit-debuginfo-2.1-3.fc12.i586.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||re...@seznam.cz --- Comment #19 from Michal Ambroz 2010-03-29 00:15:37 --- Hello would it make sense to update the package to the current version (3.0) of the upstream package? http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda_3_0_downloads.html Best regards Michal Ambroz -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #18 from Milos Jakubicek 2010-02-28 20:08:06 --- *PING2* -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #17 from Milos Jakubicek 2010-02-08 22:26:20 --- *PING* I'd like to finish this review finally, even if we would now have the CUDA library in RPMFusion (that's actually the only thing I'm really interested in). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
--- Comment #16 from Milos Jakubicek 2009-08-26 23:55:06
---
Hi Nicolas,
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > Nicolas, thank you for your considerations very much:
> ...
> >
> > Could you submit the SPEC file so that we can move forward with this?
> >
> Sorry for been that late, the general idea was to move the prefix from /usr to
> /usr/lib/nvidia-cuda-%{version}-$(uname -m) so that we can respect the FHS WRT
> packaging compiler.
> There is a need to take a look how it is done for java (openjdk/sun) for some
> example.
I have spent some time considering all these multi*install issues and came to
these conclusions:
We have to distinguish between the cuda compiler and the libraries. While the
compiled should and could go into the location compliant with FHS (will modify
so), the libraries need more adjustment:
I'm currently really not sure whether it is worth making multiple CUDA version
parallel installable -- I've found an official nvidia document stating that
CUDA *is* backward compatible [1], so we could just keep shipping the highest
CUDA version that will run with the nvidia driver present in current rpmfusions
repositories (currently, we could ship cuda 2.2).
The other (much more complicated and imo not worth doing it) choice is:
Ship all or almost all cuda versions from the same package (named
"cuda-[version]"), the highest one compliant with current rpmfusions nvidia
driver could have "Provides: cuda". Using alternatives is not enough, we have
to ensure that the libraries will be found by the linker, so the proper
solution would be to use environmental modules [2].
What is your opinion about this? Do you find it worth shipping more cuda
versions or not? (actually, in case we'd support the multiple versions, I'd
ship all of them then).
[1]
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/2_3/toolkit/docs/NVIDIA_CUDA_BestPracticesGuide_2.3.pdf
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EnvironmentModules
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #15 from Duncan Innes 2009-08-25 10:42:28 --- My current testing has shown the following: We're running CUDA 2.3 at the request of our developers, so we are currently having to use Nvidia beta drivers 190.18 I've not managed to get CUDA working at all on my workstation if I install any of the nvidia-beta RPMs. Not been able to nail this down, but if I install the binary driver downloaded from nvidia things run OK. This is confusing as I thought the RPM builds were a complete version of the official nvidia binary install? The server attached to the Tesla box is installed with the cudadriver_2.3_linux_64_190.18.run and cudatoolkit_2.3_linux_64_rhel5.3.run binaries from Nvidia. The CUDA 2.3 SDK is installed on some systems at the moment, but not all. Our developers are writing test apps to push to the Tesla boxes & suitable workstations. I will update with more information about that when it's available. My RPM building skills are somewhat limited, but I'd like to help if I can. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
--- Comment #14 from NicolasChauvet 2009-08-06 18:42:33 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Nicolas, thank you for your considerations very much:
...
>
> Could you submit the SPEC file so that we can move forward with this?
>
Sorry for been that late, the general idea was to move the prefix from /usr to
/usr/lib/nvidia-cuda-%{version}-$(uname -m) so that we can respect the FHS WRT
packaging compiler.
There is a need to take a look how it is done for java (openjdk/sun) for some
example.
You shouldn't wait for my spec anymore as I tend to have explored more than
necessary (mulitple cuda toolkit installed).
I think the spec should be cuda.spec, because we didn't use the toolkit keyword
for Cg either.
@Duncan, thx for you interest. One way to have usefull info is to package an
application using the cuda compiler. But other infor about the matching drivers
and other testing are very valuable feedbacks.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Duncan Innes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dun...@innes.net --- Comment #13 from Duncan Innes 2009-08-06 17:04:33 --- Just to register interest in this work. Have systems fully ready to test CUDA rpm's when necessary. Running Fedora 11 x86_64 with Cuda capable card Currently running Cuda drivers, toolkit and SDK downloaded from nvidia and installed manually - so I know what works and kind of how it works. Am using Cuda 2.3 though which currently require the nvidia beta 190.18 driver. Also interested in running on RHEL5 x86_64 if that's an option at all. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 --- Comment #12 from Milos Jakubicek 2009-07-26 21:27:21 --- ping again -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
--- Comment #11 from Milos Jakubicek 2009-05-31 23:01:33
---
Nicolas, thank you for your considerations very much:
(In reply to comment #10)
> I have improved the spec file, but it remains two ways of improvements with
> some related questions:
> - Does binaries/libraries compiled with cuda 1.1 works with cuda 2.1 (2.2)
> - Does the packaging scheme will work also for cuda 1.1 (which may remains
> suitable for older systems/drivers), and forthcoming 2.2 (in other words,
> shall
> we have version in the name, the same as java-1.6.0-{openjdk,sun} are
> versionned).
>From what I have found in forums, backward compatibility should be preserved,
hence I'd rather avoid such solutions.
> - How the cuda compiler should works with the nvidia drivers Requirements.
> (buildtime/runtime). That will make the cuda enabled libraries/(binaries?) to
> be enabled once the driver support cuda with an additional sub-directory (the
> same as glibc use dso from _libdir/sse2 when cpu support this feature). So
> either this sub-directory need to be versioned (sugegstion:
> _libdir/cudart-2.1)
> either we do not need that, (_libdir/cuda).
Ehm...I'm afraid I probably didn't understand the question, but imo the
libraries should be just in %{_libdir}.
>
> (I will submit a new spec soon).
>
Could you submit the SPEC file so that we can move forward with this?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
--- Comment #10 from NicolasChauvet 2009-04-28 15:04:21 ---
Packaging a compiler isn't as trivial as any other packages.
I think it would be fine to have a project using the cuda compiler packaged as
an experiment. Do you have some candidate for this?
(I may have two cases, schroedinger-nonfree and nvidia-texture-tools).
Then I have few questions...
I have improved the spec file, but it remains two ways of improvements with
some related questions:
- Does binaries/libraries compiled with cuda 1.1 works with cuda 2.1 (2.2)
- Does the packaging scheme will work also for cuda 1.1 (which may remains
suitable for older systems/drivers), and forthcoming 2.2 (in other words, shall
we have version in the name, the same as java-1.6.0-{openjdk,sun} are
versionned).
- How the cuda compiler should works with the nvidia drivers Requirements.
(buildtime/runtime). That will make the cuda enabled libraries/(binaries?) to
be enabled once the driver support cuda with an additional sub-directory (the
same as glibc use dso from _libdir/sse2 when cpu support this feature). So
either this sub-directory need to be versioned (sugegstion: _libdir/cudart-2.1)
either we do not need that, (_libdir/cuda).
In Any case, produced libraries/binaries seems to be linked with the cudart
library from the cuda compiler, so this last needs to be splitted from the
compiler package to be installed independently.(as multilibs).
Produced binaries/libraries seems also to use symbols from the libcuda library
(provided from the nvidia driver) but aren't using -lcuda at link time, so
there are a lot of undefined-non-weak-symbol.
Then there is a need to mind the pkg-config buildtime behaviour along the WIP
improvements about nvidia drivers packaging.
(I will submit a new spec soon).
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Milos Jakubicek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 Milos Jakubicek changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |kwiz...@gmail.com |rev...@rpmfusion.org| --- Comment #9 from Milos Jakubicek 2009-04-18 04:38:31 --- Ops, sorry...somehow I managed to de-assign the bugreport. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
Milos Jakubicek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|kwiz...@gmail.com |rpmfusion-package-
||rev...@rpmfusion.org
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Milos Jakubicek 2009-04-18 01:34:12 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I don't know where you got the cudatoolkit initscript but it is totally
> undeed.
> Once the nvidia driver is loaded, the /dev/nvidia? and /dev/nvidiactl are
> automatically created. Furthermore this script assume the module name to be
> hardcoded to nvidia.ko which won't be garanted in the near future for all
> nvidia driver branches (even only cuda capables branches).
Well, I found the info about it on NVidia website ("might be necessary") and it
was present in the Mandriva package. Unfortunately I don't have any
CUDA-enabled GPU card available (...in fact, I've no Nvidia around at all, just
realizing:), hence I'm sorry but I couldn't test. I have one tester among
Fedoras BOINC users who however is not able to find out such things of course.
>
> - You need a ExclusiveArch since cudatoolkit is only provided as i386 i586
> x86_64
> That will lead to have:
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 10
> ExclusiveArch: i586 x86_64
> %else
> ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64
> %endif
Done.
> - Please use the full source url when possible for SOURCE0/1
Done, sorry, I thought there is no direct link, but finally I found one indeed.
> - cuda virtual provides can probably be versioned (version-release.)
Done.
> - Post scripts, since libraries are provided by the -libs sub-package, you
> need
> to have:
> %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
Done.
> - According to the cuda download page. The cudatoolkit highly depend on a
> certified nvidia driver version. (specially for EL-5, where they are multiple
> version). I can bump the nvidia driver to that version, but i guess that once
> cuda 2.2 will be here, It will be possible to have two differents certified
> cuda version on a Fedora 9 plateform.
> That will lead to work with alternative, so different version of the
> cudatoolkit can co-exist. (like there is with different version of the jdk
> compiler).
> (I don't like to use version in the name of the package )
Done too, hope in the right way.
> - It would be better to fix the package in %prep (iconv, sed, etc)
> and then to cp -pR the whole directories to a versioned prefix in %install
> (like /usr/lib/cudatoolkit-%{version}-%{_target_cpu} which is the best
> suitable
> for compiler according to the FHS )
Done.
> But this probably needs more experiments (what is the default installation
> prefix btw ?)
> Whatever the decision to use a better prefix, I don't like cuda headers to be
> available in the standard include path. This could be tweaked from
> /usr/bin/nvcc.profile.
I used %{_includedir}/cudart which is one of the upstream solutions.
Updated SPEC file as previously on:
http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/nvidia-cuda-toolkit/cudatoolkit.spec
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 459] Review request: cudatoolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459 NicolasChauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review request: nvidia-cuda-|Review request: cudatoolkit |toolkit - NVIDIA CUDA |- NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit |Toolkit libraries | --- Comment #7 from NicolasChauvet 2009-04-15 13:09:06 --- updated package - summary -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
