Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 29, 2025. It is now read-only.

Exposes Packaging SDK#74

Merged
ekcasey merged 4 commits intomainfrom
package
May 12, 2025
Merged

Exposes Packaging SDK#74
ekcasey merged 4 commits intomainfrom
package

Conversation

@ekcasey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ekcasey ekcasey commented May 9, 2025

  • Exposes public SDK for packaging model artifacts from files.
  • Extracts registry package that allow client code to fetch artifacts from registry.

For example usage see cmdPackage in main.go for mdtool.

ekcasey added 3 commits May 9, 2025 15:56
- introduces builder package for building artifacts
- extracts registry packge for direct interaction with OCI registries

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>
Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>
Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>
@ekcasey ekcasey changed the title Adds Packaging SDK Exposes Packaging SDK May 9, 2025
Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>
Comment thread internal/gguf/model.go
return mdpartial.Descriptor(m)
}

func (m *Model) GGUFPath() (string, error) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

how the gguf file will be found in model-runner without this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I left this function on types.Model interface (the type returned from the client) but removed it from the types.ModelArtifact interface. So, a model returned from the store will have a local gguf file accessible but this isn't guaranteed for any artifact we are manipulating (e.g. an aritfact in the registry). In this particular case we could implement this, but we don't actually have a need for it.

@ekcasey ekcasey marked this pull request as ready for review May 12, 2025 16:44
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@xenoscopic xenoscopic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm admittedly just reviewing from a syntactical / code standpoint - I can't speak much to the business logic here. Overall it seems cleaner and LGTM!

@ekcasey ekcasey merged commit b3792c0 into main May 12, 2025
4 checks passed
@ekcasey ekcasey deleted the package branch May 12, 2025 19:00
doringeman pushed a commit to docker/model-runner that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2025
* Provides API for packaging models

- introduces builder package for building artifacts
- extracts registry packge for direct interaction with OCI registries

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

* cleanup

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

* slim down artifact interface

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

* cleanup

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>
doringeman pushed a commit to docker/model-runner that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2025
* Provides API for packaging models

- introduces builder package for building artifacts
- extracts registry packge for direct interaction with OCI registries

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

* cleanup

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

* slim down artifact interface

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

* cleanup

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Emily Casey <emily.casey@docker.com>
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants