https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2360470 --- Comment #3 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "MIT License and/or zlib License", "Apache License", "Intel Open Source License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Public domain", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2015)", "Public domain", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016) [generated file]", "ISC License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "Apple Public Source License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence". 108017 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/intel-npu/2360470- intel-npu-compiler/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source5: https://github.com/intel/npu-plugin- llvm/arhcive/0d1145010d6d2ba48a945c824ed0ca03254b94ed/npu-plugin- llvm-0d11450.tar.gz, Source0: https://github.com/openvinotoolkit/npu_compiler/archive/npu_ud_2025_12_rc2/intel- npu-compiler-2025_12_rc2.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define pkg_ver 2025_12_rc2, %define ov_ver 2025.0.0 [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: intel-npu-compiler-2025.12-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm intel-npu-compiler-devel-2025.12-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm intel-npu-compiler-2025.12-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2z25820_')] checks: 32, packages: 3 intel-npu-compiler.spec:53: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(openvino) intel-npu-compiler.spec:55: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(level-zero-npu-extensions) intel-npu-compiler.spec:57: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(openvino-npu_plugin_elf) intel-npu-compiler.spec:59: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(npu-nn-cost-model) intel-npu-compiler.spec:61: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(npu-plugin-llvm) intel-npu-compiler.spec:63: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(flatbuffers) intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compile_tool intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: W: no-documentation intel-npu-compiler-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation intel-npu-compiler.spec: W: no-%check-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 10.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: intel-npu-compiler-debuginfo-2025.12-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmps2trgz1p')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12 _ZNK4vpux12CompilerImpl5queryB5cxx11ERKSt10shared_ptrIKN2ov5ModelEERKN9intel_npu6ConfigE (/usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12) intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12 _ZNK4vpux12CompilerImpl7compileERKSt10shared_ptrIN2ov5ModelEERKN9intel_npu6ConfigERNS_13BlobAllocatorE (/usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12) intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12 _ZNK4vpux12CompilerImpl7compileERKSt10shared_ptrIN2ov5ModelEERKN9intel_npu6ConfigE (/usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12) intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12 _ZN4vpux12CompilerImplC1Ev (/usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12) intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12 _ZNK4vpux12CompilerImpl24getSupportedOpsetVersionEv (/usr/lib64/libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025.12) intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compile_tool intel-npu-compiler.x86_64: W: no-documentation intel-npu-compiler-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings, 30 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/archive/6df40a2471737b27271bdd9b900ab5f3aec746c7/flatbuffers-6df40a2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4aa372a30703e1801514c95281966bbd7c8fb4029ab73af0d911d43ef1d3ab11 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4aa372a30703e1801514c95281966bbd7c8fb4029ab73af0d911d43ef1d3ab11 https://github.com/intel/npu-nn-cost-model/archive/a965531d3d3a37748cc5ab7feac342b35baaf7b4/npu-nn-cost-model-a965531.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ab5eaec64fc41e6e95edf13a748d2218a8bc22a5500d6d45f38079b4af92e949 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ab5eaec64fc41e6e95edf13a748d2218a8bc22a5500d6d45f38079b4af92e949 https://github.com/openvinotoolkit/npu_plugin_elf/archive/ce501d3059c81fd6bd0ad7165ab823838fa5d851/npu_plugin_elf-ce501d3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c46377f0ce88c5654bc9b0725bfe418a54502bcc99180fb6232f3bbc51011e1e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c46377f0ce88c5654bc9b0725bfe418a54502bcc99180fb6232f3bbc51011e1e https://github.com/intel/level-zero-npu-extensions/archive/110f48ee8eda22d8b40daeeecdbbed0fc3b08f8b/level-zero-npu-extensions-110f48e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2af2d960ec0b84652650c6a97a19ffae5d5c9b2fa6a12a75497899d633ea0520 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2af2d960ec0b84652650c6a97a19ffae5d5c9b2fa6a12a75497899d633ea0520 https://github.com/openvinotoolkit/openvino/archive/2025.0.0/openvino-2025.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2cbff5a0ac1bc738c33ba103569f8daf20d3a17d3db94da11ae207ffb9e4395 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2cbff5a0ac1bc738c33ba103569f8daf20d3a17d3db94da11ae207ffb9e4395 Requires -------- intel-npu-compiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgflags.so.2.2()(64bit) libopenvino.so.2500()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) intel-npu-compiler-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): intel-npu-compiler(x86-64) libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025()(64bit) Provides -------- intel-npu-compiler: bundled(flatbuffers) bundled(level-zero-npu-extensions) bundled(npu-nn-cost-model) bundled(npu-plugin-llvm) bundled(openvino) bundled(openvino-npu_plugin_elf) intel-npu-compiler intel-npu-compiler(x86-64) libnpu_driver_compiler.so.2025()(64bit) intel-npu-compiler-devel: intel-npu-compiler-devel intel-npu-compiler-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2360470 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131632693 b) Is it possible to use the OpenVINO in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/openvino/ c) Is it possible to use the FlatBuffers in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/flatbuffers/ d) Can level-zero-npu-extensions, npu-nn-cost-model npu-plugin-llvm and openvino-npu_plugin_elf be packaged separately? Ideally upstream would pin on release commits when they do a release. e) Please change %define pkg_ver 2025_12_rc2 %define ov_ver 2025.0.0 to %global pkg_ver 2025_12_rc2 %global ov_ver 2025.0.0 f) Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires is a false positive g) It does not build on Fedora42. Not a blocker, but may want to check why. h) Is it possible to add some documentation? for example a man page. i) Some of the bundled libraries have a number of additional licenses. It maybe better to review them separately. j) Can any tests be run? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2360470 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202360470%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
