vcpkg is the only reasonable one. But I've been burned too many times by libraries staying outdated for months. So I'll stick with manually managing my libraries and also avoiding cmake. Still the best way IMO
C++ Package Managers: The Ultimate Roundup
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: C++ Package Managers: The Ultimate Roundup
#12Meson's Wraps are pretty useful for including and building dependencies across different OSes.
We migrated netpanzer from Scons to Meson - that was a lot of work (which I didn't do), but it actually integrates with CLion now, builds on win/Linux easily, and builds fast with Ninja.
Scons wasn't that bad, though, I just feel like the build script being turing complete was a pain.
Also Meson doesn't want to just output a binary in your source root. It insists to put it in a build dir, unlike scons.
Re: C++ Package Managers: The Ultimate Roundup
#13Is it weird that the list doesn't include plain old Linux package repositories?
Downloading the dev version of libraries is ancient history.
Re: C++ Package Managers: The Ultimate Roundup
#14Is it weird that the list doesn't include plain old Linux package repositories? Downloading the dev version of libraries is ancient history.
Linuc package repositories require root rights.
Re: C++ Package Managers: The Ultimate Roundup
#15> Spack cons. Not as well-suited for general-purpose development While I would not use Spack (or any package manager) to drive the usual hack-build-test development loop, Spack does provide at least two mechanisms to support that kind of general-purpose development activity: "environments" and "views". Given the list of build systems includes SCons, I'd expect to see waf (waf.io) here.
There is also `spack develop`, on which people are building hack/build/test loops. You can `spack develop` any package in spack, and easily build with a modified version of something.