# rocalution 7.2.4 SRU (resolute) — build / autopkgtest / lintian report

- **Date:** 2026-07-14
- **Test environment:** `igor-resolute` LXC container (Ubuntu resolute), with
  `ppa:bullwinkle-team/rocm-7.2.4-resolute-sru` enabled for the ROCm 7.2.4
  build-deps not yet in the archive.
- **Current in resolute:** `rocalution` 7.1.1-0ubuntu1
- **Proposed SRU:** `rocalution` 7.2.4-1~exp1~26.04.1

## 1. Build

`dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -b` for 7.2.4 completed successfully: all four
binaries (`librocalution1`, `librocalution1-tests`, `librocalution-dev`,
`librocalution-doc`) plus dbgsym packages were produced. The package's own
test suite (rocALUTION gtest suite, run via `dh_auto_test-arch`) passed as
part of the build.

## 2. Autopkgtest

Ran with the `null` backend directly against the built 7.2.4 binaries
(`autopkgtest -B rocalution_*.dsc *_7.2.4-1~exp1~26.04.1~exp1_*.deb -- null`):

```
autopkgtest [14:48:13]: test command1: - - - - - - - - - - results - - - - - - 
- - - -
command1             PASS
autopkgtest [14:48:13]: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ summary
command1             PASS
```

**Result: PASS.** The single declared test (`debian/tests/control`, running
`librocalution1-tests`' `rocalution-test` binary) passed; the numerous
`SKIPPED` sub-cases are the package's own gtest filtering (e.g. arch-specific
skips), not failures.

## 3. Lintian comparison — current (7.1.1) vs proposed (7.2.4)

Same flags used for both: `lintian -Evi --pedantic`. Baseline binaries/source
for 7.1.1-0ubuntu1 were fetched from the resolute archive; 7.2.4 binaries/source
were built locally as above.

### Binaries

| | 7.1.1-0ubuntu1 (current) | 7.2.4-1~exp1~26.04.1 (proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Tags found | 2 | 2 |

Both versions report the **exact same** two pedantic tags, both in
`librocalution-doc`:

```
X: librocalution-doc: duplicate-files 
usr/share/doc/librocalution-dev/html/_sphinx_design_static/design-tabs.js 
usr/share/doc/librocalution-dev/html/_static/design-tabs.js
X: librocalution-doc: duplicate-files 
usr/share/doc/librocalution-dev/html/_sphinx_design_static/sphinx-design.min.css
 usr/share/doc/librocalution-dev/html/_static/sphinx-design.min.css
```

No other binary package (`librocalution1`, `librocalution1-tests`,
`librocalution-dev`) has any lintian tag in either version. **Verdict: no
regression — identical.**

### Source

| | 7.1.1-0ubuntu1 (current) | 7.2.4-1~exp1~26.04.1 (proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Tags found | 8 | 7 |

Diff between the two tag lists:

```diff
- prefer-uscan-symlink filenamemangle 
s%(?:.*?)?v?(\d[\d.]*)\.tar\.gz%rocalution-$1.tar.gz% [debian/watch:4]
+ prefer-uscan-symlink filenamemangle s%.*/rocm-@ANY_VERSION@%rocalution-$1% 
[debian/watch:5]
- very-long-line-length-in-source-file 4170 > 512 [toolchain-windows.cmake:19]
```

Both differences are expected, not regressions:

1. `prefer-uscan-symlink` — same tag, different text/line, because
   `debian/watch` was intentionally rewritten for the ROCm monorepo migration.
2. `very-long-line-length-in-source-file` on `toolchain-windows.cmake` is
   **gone** in 7.2.4 — the long line was shortened/removed upstream, so this
   is one fewer finding, not a new one.

All other 7 tags are identical across both versions (debian-watch signature
check, `debian/copyright` year update note, and the remaining upstream
long-line notices in docs/.github files).

**Verdict: no regression — functionally identical**, with one pre-existing
tag having disappeared for the better.

## Summary

- Build: OK
- Autopkgtest: PASS
- Lintian binaries: identical to current archive version (2/2 tags match,
  docs package included)
- Lintian source: identical modulo two expected/explained differences, no
  new issues introduced

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2154350

Title:
  SRU: New upstream version 7.2.4

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rocalution/+bug/2154350/+subscriptions


-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to