Revisiting system packages
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 258
- Forks
- 68
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Per chat with @kkaefer - Mason `system` packages are no longer in common use. We should consider fixing the problems we've experienced in using them. And if this is not viable or desirable we should move on deprecating and removing them.
The are not in common use because of the relative ease, for example, of just doing `-lz` instead of trying to get `zlib system` working on multiple architectures.
Another problem with system packages is that they are not published, which makes their usage inconsistent and not viable currently from `mason.cmake`. Originally there was no need to publish them because they were empty anyway and all of the logic was in the script.sh. That’s no longer true now that we are using mason.ini.
- previously: #65
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the system package behavior described in this issue and the prior discussion in #65, including how mason.ini and mason.cmake handle unpublished packages. Determine whether system packages can work consistently across architectures; done means either a viable fix is defined or a deprecation and removal path is agreed.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cmake, cpp
- Domain
- build-system, tooling
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100