I think you misunderstood rfoos suggestion slightly.

From how I interpreted it, he meant you could create a new python package, this would effectively be the binary you need.

In your current package, you could depend on the new one, and through that - pull in the binary.

This would let you easily decouple your package from the binary,too - so it'd be easy to update the binary to latest even without pushing a new version of your original package

I've maintained release pipelines before and handled packaging in a previous job, but I'm not particularly into the python ecosystem, so take this with a grain of salt: an approach would be

Pip Packages :

    * Unsloth: current package, prefers using unsloth-llama, and uses path llama-cpp as fallback (with error msg as final fallback if neither exist, promoting install for unsloth-llama)
    * Unsloth-llama: new package which only bundles the llama cpp binary

Oh ok sorry maybe I misunderstood sorry! I actually found my partial work I did for precompiled binaries! https://huggingface.co/datasets/unsloth/precompiled_llama_cp...

I was trying to see if I could pre-compile some llama.cpp binaries then save them as a zip file (I'm a noob sorry) - but I definitely need to investigate further on how to do python pip binaries