Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
llama-cpp: pull upstream flake changes #289513
llama-cpp: pull upstream flake changes #289513
Changes from all commits
0317300
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't notice that, where? Libraries and headers are installed by CMake
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I built it locally and went by the output of
tree
to check. Embarrassingly I read that wrong. I will update my comment.Actually the previous version commit only has
/bin
, and additionally/lib
forlibggml_shared.so
andlibllama.so
with.override{ static=false; }
.This PR gets rid of the flag and has some extra stuff in
lib
and adds a/include
:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tbh I only checked the upstream flake yet. I'll have a look at both of the PRs during the week
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's an interesting thought 👍🏻 . Since we in principle can contribute both to the nixpkgs and to the upstream nix expressions, we could expose all of the relevant metadata in the the
passthru
(or even in the outputs if needed) to accommodate smooth transitionThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To ensure this doesn't bite us in the future, we could propose a PR upstream adding a cmake option that prefixes all of the installed binaries (the default prefix being the empty string)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a good idea. 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm maybe not following, but why integrating the Vulkan PR should be a blocker for merging this? I wouldn't mind if this was a separate PR, depending on whether it's easier to pull this together with or without the Vulkan enhancement.
@mschwaig's concerns need to be resolved indeed. Btw, @happysalada do you still have time for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's on the Roadmap 🔮!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unrelated to your change: this is such an odd line and I wonder why the Nix build needs it. I'm no Metal-head, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Gorgeous.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The comment is from the upstream flake, I guess it's ok to just "pull those changes", but consider following up on the suggestion from the comments in a separate commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the xnack- present on some of these would make it difficult to abstract away
Happy to follow up with a separate PR when this has been resolved exactly and tested.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this breaks
meta.mainProgram
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be fair, it was the upstream's choice to use non-composable/generic names (these won't do for nixpkgs, imo). 👍🏻 that the name should be consistent with whatever
meta.mainProgram
is keptThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The description also wants to be updated from the upstream: Inference of LLaMA model in pure C/C++
I like the
pnameSuffix
anddescriptionSuffix
things that upstream does as well, which I note you chose not to port over.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was a little lazy, and wasn't 100% sure it was going to be accepted. I wanted to make the smallest change possible. How about we do that in a follow up PR ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I have no strong feelings about it being in this PR.