| 15 Feb 2025 |
 SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | Thank you, this addresses the concern that we might be "imposing unwanted work and expectations on another team" at least for now.
Jonas Chevalier in addition to the questions about the scope, I wonder what "Nix Community Projects" is, legally? In particular, thinking of physical hardware, can it "own things"?
| 20:42:11 |
| 16 Feb 2025 |
 connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | SomeoneSerge (UTC+U[-12,12]): any tips for getting CMake PRs reviewed? https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/merge_requests/10354 | 01:12:36 |
 ruro | Question: how soon is "prior to 25.05"? Do you mean "after the 25.05 branch-off" or "some time between now and 25.05 release" or what? In other words, when will CUDA 11.x be removed from master/unstable? | 03:51:57 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | My understanding from the GCC maintainers for Nixpkgs is that they'll remove it as part of their GCC 11 removal, which will happen prior to the 25.05 branch-off, so that it is not available in the 25.05 release | 05:16:56 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | Well they already pinged https://gitlab.kitware.com/robertmaynard | 17:19:24 |
 aidalgol | Any idea what's going on here? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/382169 | 18:56:23 |
| aidalgol | I know I added TensorRT to nixpkgs, but I've fallen behind with some of the derivation refactoring. | 18:56:59 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | Yeah it just needs a cleanup
Honestly need to move to the 10.x series which don’t have a login preventing download — I’ve got those packaged out of tree
Speaking of, in the out of tree stuff I’ve been working on I’m postponing the CUDA 12.8 update and instead going to be making a PR to merge it back into Nixpkgs | 19:43:16 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | That will remove support for CUDA 11 (and PowerPC, but that’s more of an NVIDIA thing), but Jetson devices running JetPack 5-based OS (like JetPack NixOS) will still be supported by way of cuda_compat up to 12.2 | 19:46:47 |
| 17 Feb 2025 |
 Jonas Chevalier | We have https://opencollective.com/europe that acts as a fiscal host. In practice it means that I pay the invoices, and then get reimbursed by the legal entity.
Since it's all subscribtion we haven't encountered any ownership issue so far, so I'm not sure how it would work if we were to buy hardware.
If that helps, I don't mind creating a non-profit with a mission that's aligned with our goals. It might take a month or so. | 20:21:58 |
| 18 Feb 2025 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | SomeoneSerge (UTC+U[-12,12]): I'm gonna need guidance on how best to approach getting the work I've done in cuda-packages upstreamed. I re-organized the tree so it looks more like Nixpkgs (https://github.com/connorbaker/cuda-packages) and I have a branch where I copied stuff over into Nixpkgs (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/compare/master...ConnorBaker:nixpkgs:feat/cudaPackages-modules-round-two) but it's a 20k line diff.
In terms of the order of upstreaming stuff, I was thinking:
- out of package-set things, like utility packages/setup hooks and tests for those
- setup hooks for the package set (this includes wrapping NVCC such that we get rid of
backendStdenv
- introduction of
cudaLib which is full of utility functions and types necessary for everything else
- introduction of rewritten modules,
top-level/cuda-packages.nix, and the remainder of the changes
, I could start with the foundational out-of-package-set stuff I made which I use for setup hooks.
| 01:04:04 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | * SomeoneSerge (UTC+U[-12,12]): I'm gonna need guidance on how best to approach getting the work I've done in cuda-packages upstreamed. I re-organized the tree so it looks more like Nixpkgs (https://github.com/connorbaker/cuda-packages) and I have a branch where I copied stuff over into Nixpkgs (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/compare/master...ConnorBaker:nixpkgs:feat/cudaPackages-modules-round-two) but it's a 20k line diff.
In terms of the order of upstreaming stuff, I was thinking:
- out of package-set things, like utility packages/setup hooks and tests for those
- setup hooks for the package set (this includes wrapping NVCC such that we get rid of
backendStdenv
- introduction of
cudaLib which is full of utility functions and types necessary for everything else
- introduction of rewritten modules,
top-level/cuda-packages.nix, and the remainder of the changes
| 01:04:13 |
 indoor_squirrel | Redacted or Malformed Event | 01:08:08 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | * SomeoneSerge (UTC+U[-12,12]): I'm gonna need guidance on how best to approach getting the work I've done in cuda-packages upstreamed. I re-organized the tree so it looks more like Nixpkgs (https://github.com/connorbaker/cuda-packages) and I have a branch where I copied stuff over into Nixpkgs (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/compare/master...ConnorBaker:nixpkgs:feat/cudaPackages-modules-round-two) but it's a 20k line diff.
In terms of the order of upstreaming stuff, I was thinking:
- out of package-set things, like utility packages/setup hooks and tests for those
- setup hooks for the package set (this includes wrapping NVCC such that we get rid of
backendStdenv
- introduction of
cudaLib which is full of utility functions and types necessary for everything else
- introduction of rewritten modules,
top-level/cuda-packages.nix, and the remainder of the changes
| 01:08:26 |
|  @stites:matrix.org left the room. | 12:56:25 |
 Kevin Mittman (EOY sleep) | Anyone here planning to attend GPU Technology Conference (GTC) next month in Bay Area? | 21:37:48 |
| 19 Feb 2025 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | I see, makes sense. Yeah we can start looking into establishing another non-profit (another, as in in addition to the Foundation). I think we can afford ourselves a bit of reflection time to decide on the structure and jurisdiction | 09:34:55 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Or we could keep track of who owns which hardware and keep it simple | 09:45:43 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Something to consider | 09:46:01 |
