> The bug doesn't really explain why it's fine to remove all the listed packages on ppc64el and what's the plan to bring those back if needed
The ppc64el ROCm packages that I've requested for removal have never been shown to work on any hardware. I am the developer that fixed most of the compilation errors that were blocking the ROCm stack from building on ppc64el. I did that because Timothy Pearson of Raptor Computing had enabled the ROCm driver support on ppc64el. The removal of x86-isms was sufficient to get much of ROCm working on arm64, but Timothy and I never found a ppc64el system that worked with ROCm. There's no plan to bring these packages back on ppc64el. They have zero users, zero upstream support, and zero passing tests. If the compiler bugs causing FTBFS are fixed this week, then I might reconsider my plan to drop the ppc64el architecture from these packages... but I'm not expecting that to be the case. > Also a removal request usually comes with a reverse-depends analysis of the packages to ensure they don't have other things in the archive needed them What should the analysis look like? The original bug description requests the removal of all reverse dependencies of rocblas and rocfft. I believe I included all reverse-depends as packages to be removed in the request. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2134241 Title: Please RM ppc64el binaries To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ggml/+bug/2134241/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
