* Making a modules-specific solution could be fairly straight-forward, and be completely orthogonal to pkg-config, so that may be more attractive from a pragmatic perspective.

That might be sufficient for an ISO TR (that nobody implements), but NOT viable in the real world since we all recognize that it really is about packaging or heavily interacts with package management. Sometimes we just need to bite the bullet and confront the elephant in the room. I suspect this is one of those cases.

-- Gaby


From: SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Daniel Ruoso via SG15
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 12:21 PM
To: David Blaikie <dblaikie_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>; sg15_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [SG15] [EXTERNAL] Re: Draft: Requirements for Usage of C++ Modules at Bloomberg

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 3:17 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie_at_[hidden]<mailto:dblaikie_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
Makes sense. Is there one of the existing formats (sounds like pkg-config) that seems like a fairly good candidate for generalization/being championed in this effort, or is it likely that a new format would be created here?

pkg-config is definitely a very viable candidate, but it would move things a bit beyond the scope of modules and jump into "package management" in general, which could be a political trap. Making a modules-specific solution could be fairly straight-forward, and be completely orthogonal to pkg-config, so that may be more attractive from a pragmatic perspective.

But I want to avoid jumping into the solution before we have consensus on the requirements.