docs: Do not depend on gxx in pixi build docs #2815
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
traversaro
changed the title
ruben-arts
approved these changes
Jan 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
gxxpackage is not a valid dependency if one wants to build a C++ package, as it is missing the required activation scripts, and this can easily confuse users, see RoboStack/ros-humble#119 (comment) .While I understand that this is just a minimal example, I am quite afraid that more and more users will may misunderstand this, so I think it may be better to just depend on
cxx-compilerthat is the conda-forge-documented way of getting a C++ compiler. Any other solution that does not depend simply on the "incomplete" gxx package is perfectly fine for me as well.