Skip to content
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

ollama: only set updateScript for ollama, not ollama-{rocm,cuda} #345375

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2024

Conversation

abysssol
Copy link
Contributor

Description of changes

Attempt to prevent passthru.updateScript from triggering a bot update of ollama-rocm and ollama-cuda. Since ollama, ollama-rocm, and ollama-cuda are all defined in the same file (only specialized with arguments/overrides), only ollama should be explicitly updated.

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

Copy link
Contributor

@adamcstephens adamcstephens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be fine. Could also compare pname != "ollama" as the others are renamed.

@abysssol abysssol marked this pull request as ready for review September 29, 2024 23:21
@ofborg ofborg bot added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux labels Sep 29, 2024
@mweinelt
Copy link
Member

Nixpkgs-update supports a skiplist: https://github.com/nix-community/nixpkgs-update/blob/d55f27272f33975d67b13be9fa241cdea297dfb1/src/Skiplist.hs#L47

@abysssol
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mweinelt Thank you for letting me know. So, to be clear, I should create a pull request on that repository to add ollama-rocm and ollama-cuda, right? And this PR is unnecessary (or maybe ineffective?) and should be closed?

@mweinelt
Copy link
Member

If the only thing you worry about is r-ryantm, then yes.

@drupol
Copy link
Contributor

drupol commented Sep 30, 2024

Diff lgtm, but the alternative solution proposed here might seem a better idea.

@wegank wegank added the 12.approvals: 2 This PR was reviewed and approved by two reputable people label Sep 30, 2024
@abysssol
Copy link
Contributor Author

If the only thing you worry about is r-ryantm

Are there any bots other than r-ryantm that might be a problem?

If this PR may help, it seems better to merge this as well as adding ollama-rocm and ollama-cuda to the skip list. Unless there's some reason not to merge this? Maybe this won't actually make any difference?

@abysssol
Copy link
Contributor Author

abysssol commented Oct 2, 2024

nix-community/nixpkgs-update#446 has been merged

@abysssol abysssol merged commit 78389c5 into NixOS:master Oct 2, 2024
28 checks passed
@abysssol abysssol deleted the ollama-update-script branch October 2, 2024 23:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux 12.approvals: 2 This PR was reviewed and approved by two reputable people
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants