| 6 Feb 2025 |
|  djacu joined the room. | 15:49:57 |
 ruro | This might be a stupid question, but when the nixpkgs manual says
All new projects should use the CUDA redistributables available in cudaPackages in place of cudaPackages.cudatoolkit
does it mean that individual derivations from cudaPackages.* should be manually added to buildInputs/nativeBuildInputs. For example, would this mean that I should just manually add cuda_nvcc to nativeBuildInputs.
What if the upstream package expects a single CUDA_PATH path containing all the cuda dependencies? I think, I saw some people using buildEnv to collect all of the required binaries/libraries under a single path, but I am not sure if this is the most elegant way to do this (also, it's not immediately clear, how would a single CUDA_PATH interact with cross compilation).
| 16:54:13 |
| ruro | * This might be a stupid question, but when the nixpkgs manual says
All new projects should use the CUDA redistributables available in cudaPackages in place of cudaPackages.cudatoolkit
does it mean that individual derivations from cudaPackages.* should be manually added to buildInputs/nativeBuildInputs. For example, would this mean that I should just manually add cuda_nvcc to nativeBuildInputs.
What if the upstream package expects a single CUDA_PATH path containing all the cuda dependencies? I think, I saw some people using buildEnv to collect all of the required binaries/libraries under a single path, but I am not sure if this is the most elegant way to do this (also, it's not immediately clear, how would a single CUDA_PATH interact with cross compilation).
| 16:54:19 |
| ruro | * This might be a stupid question, but when the nixpkgs manual says
All new projects should use the CUDA redistributables available in cudaPackages in place of cudaPackages.cudatoolkit
does it mean that individual derivations from cudaPackages.* should be manually added to buildInputs/nativeBuildInputs. For example, would this mean that I should just manually add cuda_nvcc to nativeBuildInputs?
What if the upstream package expects a single CUDA_PATH path containing all the cuda dependencies? I think, I saw some people using buildEnv to collect all of the required binaries/libraries under a single path, but I am not sure if this is the most elegant way to do this (also, it's not immediately clear, how would a single CUDA_PATH interact with cross compilation).
| 16:54:58 |
 SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | Honestly, I've no idea what license, if any, applies to torch-bin | 17:24:28 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | Yes, or we could just agree that testing for insecure dependencies is out of scope for hydra | 17:26:09 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | I expect static and devrt to be in .dev's propagatedBuildInputs | 17:27:54 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) |
What if the upstream package expects a single CUDA_PATH path containing all the cuda dependencies? I think, I saw some people using buildEnv to collect all of the required
If upstream is co-operative, they need to be contacted and offered a proper solution like FindCUDAToolkit.cmake without any CUDA_PATHs or merged-layout assumptiosn
| 17:29:22 |
 zopieux | thanks for looking. Sadly, I have now compiled the package myself so it's cached and this doesn't say anything useful. I suppose I can try next time I update. What do you except out of emptying builders? | 17:29:50 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) |
does it mean that individual derivations from cudaPackages.* should be manually added to buildInputs/nativeBuildInputs. For example, would this mean that I should just manually add cuda_nvcc to nativeBuildInputs?
That's the idea. We could consider an automation more along the lines of propagatedBuildInputs, but symlinks we hope to avoid, because it's hard to prune the references to static libraries after the build
| 17:31:10 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | Maybe gc it? | 17:31:58 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) |
4s
Run # Get the latest eval.yml workflow run for the PR's target commit
Comparing against "https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/13155928895"
Workflow was not successful (conclusion: failure), cannot make comparison
Has anyone encountered this? I've no idea what this workflow is even for
| 17:41:42 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) changed their display name from SomeoneSerge (Gand St. Pieters) to SomeoneSerge (UTC+U[-12,12]). | 17:51:07 |
