alicevision
[request] Remove Boost::math_c99 dependency
Currently the project requires Boost::math_c99 to be available. I would propose to change this dependency to just Boost::math.
I don't think the project actually uses the c99 functions anywhere (it only uses Boost::math), as I don't see that the relevant header is included anywhere (which would be #include <boost/math/tr1.hpp>).
I stumbled across this when trying to switch the AliceVision embedded dependency building process from b2 to CMake for Boost. As it turns out, the CMake build system neither can build the math_c99 module nor informs the user that it is missing from the installation 😅.
I am currently waiting for an answer regarding this (https://github.com/boostorg/math/issues/1329). Nevertheless, it currently makes CCTag unusable for people who built their Boost with CMake.
It comes from #168, something to do with vcpkg. If we can safely remove it I'm all for it
At least on Linux and macOS this worked fine (no dependency on mth_c99). I do not have a Windows machine available right now, so I can't test that. Will try to set-up a VM and see what can be done for vcpkg, if it is an issue after all.
EDIT:
I quickly scanned through the header related to sign.hpp, and I honestly don't see where it calls out to any non-header only function. So theoretically that should not cause a linker issue... but as a long-term Unix user, I don't know what MSVC might do in terms of voodoo-magic here...
I finally got to spin up the Windows VM. I tested it on with the latest Visual Studio SDK and removed the legacy module with an overlay port (and in turn all links to Boost::math_c99 in the CMakeLists.txts).
I had no issues whatsoever - everything compiled fine and I got no linker issues.
And the maintainer of Boost::math actually proposed to remove this patch from vcpkg completely - so whatever the issue was back then, I assume it got fixed along the way... the maintainer does not seem to have interest in adding the legacy libs into the CMake build system.
So from my side we can go forward with this :).
@philippremy you can try #232 I suspect that it has something to do with the way vcpkg packages each component, which is different than the official boost one or the old findBoost. I don't have a Windows machine either, so I cannot test it to see if it works now.