Quick update, I've made some new package reviews:
ROCm-Device-Libs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044664
ROCm-CompilerSupport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045955
ROCm-Device-Libs is needed to update "rocm-runtime" and for
ROCm-CompilerSupport.
ROCm-CompilerSupport
Yes, this can't be updated until someone packages ROCM-Device-Libs
unfortunately.
If anyone volunteers, I'm happy to help review.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Well I think OpenCL would be a good starting point since it's been around for
> a while
> and lots of applications use it.
>
> Fedora already has some of the base components already (hsakmt, rocm-runtime,
> llvm). For
> OCL, fedora would just need:
> - ROCm-Device-Libs (bitcode compiled by LLV
> For anyone else wondering:
>
> https://rocmdocs.amd.com/en/latest/index.html
>
> AMD ROCm is the first open-source software development platform for
> HPC/Hyperscale-class GPU computing. AMD ROCm brings the UNIX
> philosophy of choice, minimalism and modular software development to
> GP
It would be nice to have the latest version of
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-runtime also.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877523
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@
On Thursday, December 16, 2021 6:07:10 PM CET Jeremy Newton wrote:
> Full disclosure, I am both a Fedora packager and an employee at AMD.
> To be clear, the following is not at all endorsed by my employer; my
> interest and use of Fedora is purely a personal hobby and I would like to
> keep it that
I’m happy, in principle, to help co-maintain ROCm packages.
However, before becoming a co-maintainer, I always like to take a look
over packages and make sure I’m comfortable with them, i.e.:
- I can reconcile them with packaging guidelines
- I think I can fix most things that are likely to br
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:37:16AM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 12/16/21 09:07, Jeremy Newton wrote:
> > Full disclosure, I am both a Fedora packager and an employee at AMD.
> > To be clear, the following is not at all endorsed by my employer; my
> > interest and use of Fedora is purely a perso
Am 17.12.21 um 02:39 schrieb Jeremy Newton:
Well I think OpenCL would be a good starting point since it's been around for a
while and lots of applications use it.
Also I'd be interested in using pytorch (installed via pip) on my AMD system.
Years ago when Tom Stellard started to package roc
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:07:10PM -, Jeremy Newton wrote:
>
> I think that'd be awesome -- and those internal clean-ups are really
> appreciated. Having the infrastructure there is nice, but I'm also curious:
> are there any application-level tools that are in Fedora Linux already or
> whic
Yeah I think the technical leads are mostly on board with following FHS as
close as possible, which is an obvious plus for Fedora.
I think the biggest issue is the scale of the problem, and it almost feel likes
they need to work component by component, but [2] will definitely be fixed for
all c
For anyone else wondering:
https://rocmdocs.amd.com/en/latest/index.html
AMD ROCm is the first open-source software development platform for
HPC/Hyperscale-class GPU computing. AMD ROCm brings the UNIX
philosophy of choice, minimalism and modular software development to
GPU computing.
On 12/16/21 09:07, Jeremy Newton wrote:
Full disclosure, I am both a Fedora packager and an employee at AMD.
To be clear, the following is not at all endorsed by my employer; my interest
and use of Fedora is purely a personal hobby and I would like to keep it that
way.
There has been a recent
I maintain the now-deprecated pure-Python “rocm-smi” package, and I’ve
looked a few times at packaging rocm_smi_lib[1] to replace it, but the
kinds of distro-friendliness issues you mention, e.g. [2][3], have so
far been more than I was willing to work around.
I was also partially dissuaded by
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:07:10PM -, Jeremy Newton wrote:
> I see there's a few packages already, and I'm hoping to help with some
> internal processes to make ROCm more distro friendly, such as better FHS
> compliance, clearer licensing, etc.
>
> Anyone interested? I would be happy to try to
Full disclosure, I am both a Fedora packager and an employee at AMD.
To be clear, the following is not at all endorsed by my employer; my interest
and use of Fedora is purely a personal hobby and I would like to keep it that
way.
There has been a recent effort to step up Debian packaging of ROCm
16 matches
Mail list logo
