#1121021 rocblas: FTBFS on ppc64el

Package:
src:rocblas
Source:
src:rocblas
Submitter:
Florent 'Skia' Jacquet
Date:
2025-12-20 07:09:04 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1121021#5
Date:
2025-11-19 16:18:00 UTC
From:
To:
Hello there,

I've had a quick look at the FTBFS on ppc64el, and this is actually a clang crash.
The bug has been reported with more details upstream here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/168727

Cheers
Skia
#1121021#10
Date:
2025-11-20 06:04:28 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Skia,

Thanks for looking into this. Instability in the compiler has been an
ongoing theme with ROCm on ppc64el.

Christian, your ggml package is the primary reverse dependency affected.
While amd64 and arm64 can be binNMU'd, I think we might have trouble
with ppc64el for a while. As I understand it, our options are basically
to fix the bug in LLVM, find a workaround in rocblas, or RM rocblas
rdepends on ppc64el. Do you have any preferences on how to proceed?

Sincerely,
Cory Bloor
#1121021#17
Date:
2025-11-20 20:54:21 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

I will be dropping the HIP backend from ggml over the weekend, as there
are too many other issues with the ROCm stack open [1], and continuing
to depend on it would impede ggml's migration to testing.

The HIP backend will be re-added once librocblas4 has migrated to testing.

Best,
Christian

[1]: I'll start a separate thread on this over the weekend
#1121021#26
Date:
2025-12-10 22:22:57 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Cory,

Seeing as all other ROCm packages have migrated to testing now, rocblas
remains the last show-stopper for ggml.

Regardless of ggml (which no longer depends rocblas on ppc64el), rocblas
won't migrate to testing without a successful ppc64el build, as it has
previously successfully built.

So if rocblas on ppc64el should no longer be supported, then this state
needs to be cleared (I don't immediately recall the process, I think the
RT is responsible).

Best,
Christian
#1121021#31
Date:
2025-12-11 08:37:29 UTC
From:
To:
[Christian Kastner]

One file a BTS report to the ftp masters asking for the arch binaries to
be removed.  See <URL: https://bugs.debian.org/1122151 > for a randomly
picked example.
#1121021#36
Date:
2025-12-11 21:08:05 UTC
From:
To:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:37:29 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>  wrote:
 > One file a BTS report to the ftp masters asking for the arch binaries to
 > be removed.

That is indeed the next step. I believe that with my upload of spfft
1.1.1-5 today, all reverse dependencies that had optional-at-build-time
rocblas dependencies have now been updated to drop ROCm support on
ppc64el. The remaining reverse dependencies require rocblas, and so
should be removed along with it.

I believe we need to remove the ppc64el binaries for rocblas, hipblas,
rocsolver, hipsolver, and miopen. Additionally, we'll need to
remove libggml0-backend-hip for ggml. That one is unique among the
rocblas reverse dependencies in that rocblas is optional-at-build-time,
but it produces a separate binary package.

I'll double-check that and then file the request.

Sincerely,
Cory Bloor
#1121021#41
Date:
2025-12-20 06:08:45 UTC
From:
To:
[Cordell Bloor]

The removal request is now pending in
<URL: https://bugs.debian.org/1122634 >.