meson VS conan

With cargo-c I try to use the best practices to support as many platform as possible, trying to stay in sync with what meson does. Sadly what is conceptually trivial, installing a package, has lots of details that are platform-specific.

[1]: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/8153

As it happens, I recently landed a PR in meson to add a clang-like Weverything mode that includes all of that, so you can get a minimal list of more or less all GCC warnings, organized by version, from the meson source here: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/blob/710a753c78077220b13a9f7e999dcdb61339efb1/mesonbuild/compilers/mixins/gnu.py

Came here to post the same. The answer for How to build software? is Meson[1] for C and C++ and also other languages. Works well on Windows and Mac, too.

I’ve written a small Makefile to learn the basic and backgrounds. Make is fine. But the next high-level would have been Autotools, which is an intimidating and weird set of tools. Most new stuff written in C/C++ use now Meson and it feels sane.

[1] https://mesonbuild.com

If you are very fortunate, you'll be able to choose something else. I like meson myself: it looks a bit like python, it's popular, small, simple, well-documented, easy to install and update, and it works well everywhere.

I suggest changing the build tool. Meson improved C and C++ a lot:

https://mesonbuild.com/

The dependency declaration and auto-detection is nice. But the hidden extra is WrapDB, built-in package management (if wanted):

    https://mesonbuild.com/Wrap-dependency-system-manual.html

> C's only REAL problem (in my opinion) which is the lack of dependency management. Most everything else can be done with a makefile and a half decent editor.

Care to hear about our lord and saviour Meson?

Both of your quoted problems are mutually incompatible: dependency management isn't the job of the compiler, it's a job for the build or host system. If you want to keep writing makefiles, be prepared to write your own `wget` and `git` invocations to download subprojects.

Meanwhile, Meson solves the dependency management problem in a way that makes both developers and system integrators/distributions happy. It forces you to make a project that doesn't have broken inter-file or header dependency chains and cleans up all the clutter and cruft of a makefile written for any non-trivial project, while making it trivial to integrate other meson projects into your build, let other people integrate your project into theirs, and provides all of the toggles and environment variables distribution developers need to package your library properly. You can really have your cake and eat it too.

https://mesonbuild.com/

Other people going down this route seem to end up writing cmake replacements instead. I'm thinking of something like meson here except that meson never intended to transpile to cmake.

include(FetchContent) FetchContent_Declare(conan URL https://github.com/conan-io/conan/releases/download/2.3.2/conan-2.3.2-linux-x86_64.tgz ) FetchContent_Populate(conan) if (conan_POPULATED) set(CONANEXE ${conan_SOURCE_DIR}/conan) set(CONAN_AVAILABLE TRUE) endif()

Silly question: What's the difference between C++20 modules and https://conan.io? (Google was vague, and ChatGPT, you know, sometimes makes things up so I rather ask fellow humans...)

There were various approaches recommended depending on our language and ecosystem. My classmates who developed using Node.js were recommended npm, and PyPI or poetry for Python. Since my program is written in C++, I was recommended to look into one of vcpkg or conan, but I ultimately did not use either package manager.

Hi u/instinkt900, Conan maintainer here. Thanks for your feedback! Please remember that we actively monitor and respond to our issue tracker on GitHub (https://github.com/conan-io/conan/issues/new/choose), we’d love to hear about your specific use cases or pain points, so that we can improve your experience and that of other users. The motivation behind most of the updates in Conan 2.0 was precisely feedback from the community, and to improve our ability to continue delivering features in the constantly changing C++ ecosystem. We can certainly do this at a quicker pace, with some exciting new features recently released and in the pipeline: package metadata, transparent backup of downloaded package sources, cache least-recently-used cleanup, etc. A lot of the big decisions that we took for Conan 2.0 were taken with consensus from expert users and contributors (https://conan.io/tribe) and https://github.com/conan-io/tribe. Some specific workflows may not have 1:1 replacements in Conan 2.0, and are likely to affect some of the “less travelled roads” of Conan 1.x, including some features that were always marked as experimental. We are happy to hear feedback so that we can best satisfy these use cases. Conan 2.0 also includes a more sophisticated API to cover cases where the built-in integrations may not satisfy users needs. For what it’s worth - we have also heard very positive feedback from users about how Conan 2.0 simplifies their workflows when compared to Conan 1.x. The C++ tooling ecosystem is fragmented and moves at different speeds, including our users. So it’s always a fine balancing act, but we don’t want to leave anyone behind! An example is Conan Center - over 90% (~1200) of all recipes have been migrated to support Conan 2.0, while still maintaining compatibility with Conan 1.x, precisely to avoid breaking users that are still on Conan 1.x.

Solution: don't use git submodules - use a package manager like Conan or vcpkg.

The closest thing we have at the moment is conan[1]. It’s a cross platform package manager that attempts to implement “toolchains”, whereby different build systems can be integrated[2]. This is a big problem with package management in C/C++, there’s no single, standardised build system that most projects use. There isn’t even a standardised compiler! So when hosting your own packages using Conan, often you need to make sure you build your application for three different compilers, for three different platforms. Sometimes (for modern MacOS) also for two different architectures each.

If you control the compiler AND build system you can get away with just one package for most cases. This true for Microsoft’s C/C++ package manager, NuGet[3]

Historically, the convention has been to use the package manager of the underlying system to install packages, as there are so many different build configurations to worry about when packaging the libraries. The other advantage of using the system package manager is that dependencies (shared libraries) that are common can be shared between many applications, saving space.

[1] https://conan.io/

Anyway, the problems are today starting to get fewer, as more an more adopt standard cross-platform portable build systems, a.k.a. CMake and package managers such as vcpkg or Conan. Together this will take care of building, installing, linking and using the entire dependency tree.

Simply use a package manager: Crypto++ is available on both vcpkg and Conan.

If you want a specific version or provide a more integrated workflow that is easier to use across platforms and among many developers, use a package manager like vcpkg or Conan.