| 16 Jun 2026 |
 Diamo | im still using torch-bin 2.11 and it requires cudNN 9.19.0 but i have 9.13.0 (from 25.11?) issue being that theres no nixpkgs commit where I can fix the 2.11 issue | 10:57:58 |
| 18 Jun 2026 |
 Wahid Khan | does torch-bin 2.12 require that cudaPackages be cudaPackages13x? | 06:06:55 |
| Wahid Khan | when I try to add torch-bin it complains that cudaPackages is 12.9 and 13+ is required. even if my flake uses cudaPackages132 | 06:07:34 |
| Wahid Khan | working around it with an overlay to set cudaPackages = cudaPackages132 | 06:08:04 |
| Wahid Khan | * does torch-bin 2.12 require that cudaPackages be cudaPackages_13_x? | 06:08:13 |
| Wahid Khan | * working around it with an overlay to set cudaPackages = cudaPackages_13_2 | 06:08:20 |
| Wahid Khan | * when I try to add torch-bin it complains that cudaPackages is 12.9 and 13+ is required. even if my flake uses cudaPackages_13_2 | 06:08:28 |
 Gaétan Lepage | Here is the overlay you need:
(final: prev: {
cudaPackages = prev.lib.recurseIntoAttrs prev."cudaPackages_13_2";
})
| 07:14:40 |
| Wahid Khan | yep, doing something similar | 07:22:02 |
| Diamo | oh yeah i figured it out too, using cues packages_13_1 with nixpkgs pinned to commit 461de5c011cdf1015d26f7a5c9f4a25404e6d90e (not using flakes) | 15:02:02 |
| Diamo | * oh yeah i figured it out too, using cudaPackages_13_1 with nixpkgs pinned to commit 461de5c011cdf1015d26f7a5c9f4a25404e6d90e (not using flakes) | 15:02:21 |
| Diamo | using torch-bin | 15:02:40 |
 ethancedwards8 | are there some tasks that just need manpower/time/hours in nixpkgs cuda right now? my company is paying for me to have gpu access to an nvidia t4 so i have proper hardware access. is this a good place to start? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/232501 | 20:26:09 |
| 19 Jun 2026 |
 connor (he/him) | I mean maybe?
Aside from difficulties with the package ecosystems as a whole for the ML stack and the absurd amount of domain knowledge required to be productive in contributing fixes or improvements, a lot of the packaging woes are caused by foundational components of Nixpkgs which need to be generalized or fixed.
That’s what I’ve been thinking about most; there’s a bunch of old tickets that need to be updated and general housekeeping we need to do; if you have the bandwidth to find and make a comment on the ticket about any other users that haven’t migrated, I’d appreciate it! | 04:25:14 |
| Gaétan Lepage | I have a gigantic todo list too, mostly around DL and/or Python stuff. We can chat about things you would be interested in helping with if you want :) | 05:51:48 |
| Gaétan Lepage | * I have a gigantic todo list too, mostly around DL, robotics and/or Python stuff. We can chat about things you would be interested in helping with if you want :) | 05:52:09 |
| 20 Jun 2026 |
| ethancedwards8 | Yes! I would love to. Definitely interesting in helping package whatever CUDA libraries are needed + improving Python support. | 03:00:26 |
| ethancedwards8 | But yes I’ll try to look through all the CUDA tickets and see what I can get up to :) always looking for more Nixpkgs projects | 03:01:13 |
| 4 Aug 2022 |
|  Winter (she/her) joined the room. | 03:26:42 |
| Winter (she/her) | (hi, just came here to read + respond to this.) | 03:28:52 |
 tpw_rules | hey. i had previously sympathzied with samuela and like i said before had some of the same frustrations. i just edited my github comment to add "[CUDA] packages are universally complicated, fragile to package, and critical to daily operations. Nix being able to manage them is unbelievably helpful to those of us who work with them regularly, even if support is downgraded to only having an expectation of function on stable branches." | 03:29:14 |
| Winter (she/her) | In reply to @tpw_rules:matrix.org
i'm mildly peeved about a recent merging of something i maintain where i'm pretty sure the merger does not own the expensive hardware required to properly test the package. i don't think it broke anything but i was given precisely 45 minutes to see the notification before somebody merged it ugh, 45 minutes? that's... not great. not to air dirty laundry but did you do what samuela did in the wandb PR and at least say that that wasn't a great thing to do? (not sure how else to word that, you get what i mean) | 03:30:23 |
| tpw_rules | no, i haven't yet, but i probably will | 03:31:03 |
| Winter (she/her) | i admittedly did that with a PR once, i forget how long the maintainer was requested for but i merged it because multiple people reported it fixed the issue. the maintainer said "hey, don't do that" after and now i do think twice before merging. so it could help, is what i'm saying. | 03:31:50 |
| tpw_rules | i'm not sure what went wrong with the wandb PR anyway, i think it was just a boneheaded move on the maintainer's part | 03:32:10 |
| Winter (she/her) | (it was also simple enough that it was fine and the maintainer said it looked good after) | 03:32:15 |
| tpw_rules | * i'm not sure what went wrong with the wandb PR anyway, i think it was just a boneheaded move on the merger's part | 03:32:19 |
| tpw_rules | but i thought most of the frustration was around packages which don't really involve CUDA breaking the fragile CUDA packages, and i'm not sure how the warning helps in this case. it's not like nixpkgs-review prints out the comments. maybe i'm wrong. but it is a legitimate problem | 03:34:19 |
| Winter (she/her) | the frustration that i see is that people are touching packages that he maintains, am i missing further context here? | 03:35:09 |
| tpw_rules | did you ever see this? https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixpkgss-current-development-workflow-is-not-sustainable/18741 | 03:35:43 |
