Comment by mFixman
2 days ago
Maybe it's a personal preference, but I don't want external programs to ever touch my package manager, even with permission. Besides, this will fail loudly for systems that don't use `apt-get`.
I would just ask the user to install the package, and _maybe_ show the command line to install it (but never run it).
I don't think this should be a personal preference, I think it should be a standard*.
That said, it does at least seem like these recent changes are a large step in the right direction.
---
* in terms of what the standard approach should be, we live in an imperfect world and package management has been done "wrong" in many ecosystems, but in an ideal world I think the "correct" solution here should be:
(1) If it's an end user tool it should be a self contained binary or it should be a system package installed via the package manager (which will manage any ancillary dependencies for you)
(2) If it's a dev tool (which, if you're cloning a cpp repo & building binaries, it is), it should not touch anything systemwide. Whatsoever.
This often results in a README with manual instructions to install deps, but there are many good automated ways to approach this. E.g. for CPP this is a solved problem with Conan Profiles. However that might incur significant maintenace overhead for the Unsloth guys if it's not something the ggml guys support. A dockerised build is another potential option here, though that would still require the user to have some kind of container engine installed, so still not 100% ideal.
I would like to be in (1) but I'm not a packaging person so I'll need to investigate more :(
(2) I might make the message on installing llama.cpp maybe more informative - ie instead of re-directing people to the docs on manual compilation ie https://docs.unsloth.ai/basics/troubleshooting-and-faqs#how-..., I might actually print out a longer message in the Python cell entirely
Yes we're working on Docker! https://hub.docker.com/r/unsloth/unsloth
> Yes we're working on Docker!
That will be nice too, though I was more just referring to simply doing something along the lines of this in your current build:
(likely mounting & calling a sh file instead of passing individual commands)
---
Although I do think getting the ggml guys to support Conan (or monkey patching your own llama conanfile in before building) might be an easier route.
1 reply →
Hopefully the solution for now is a compromise if that works? It will show the command as well, so if not accepted, typing no will error out and tell the user on how to install the package
I like it when software does work for me.
Quietly installing stuff at runtime is shady for sure, but why not if I consent?
Do you think it's ok for permissioning I guess? I might also add a 30 second timer and just bail out if there's no response from the user