Package Details: nlohmann-json 3.7.3-2

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: nlohmann-json
Description: Header-only JSON library for Modern C++
Upstream URL:
Licenses: MIT
Submitter: eduardosm
Maintainer: haawda
Last Packager: haawda
Votes: 18
Popularity: 0.50
First Submitted: 2017-10-15 16:59
Last Updated: 2019-12-04 19:54

Dependencies (1)

Sources (1)

Pinned Comments

alepez commented on 2019-05-04 13:07

For who like me doesn't want to download megabytes of tests and documentation: you can install the alternative package which downloads only needed files.

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

haawda commented on 2019-12-04 19:54




bertptrs commented on 2019-12-04 08:12

Can you enable the -DJSON_MultipleHeaders=ON flag in CMake? That way the forward-declaration headers are also installed. See:

Ryozuki commented on 2019-11-19 21:46

Ok thanks for the link.

haawda commented on 2019-11-19 14:42

Ryozuki: Clearly no! Read the article mentioned by bus or use the package mentioned in the sticky comment.

bus commented on 2019-11-18 23:44


Ryozuki commented on 2019-11-18 22:21

Please change "make" to "make -j$(nproc)" so i don't shoot myself in the head while looking at my other 11 cores do nothing.

haawda commented on 2019-07-30 21:15

wbthomason: this is debatable. The package is a header only package, so no built file will actually be installed anyway. So the main purpose of the built is checking. I think ist is overkill to do this twice.

But bus gave a valid point. So I renamed the check function to build.

bus commented on 2019-07-30 05:26

The package fails to build if your BUILDENV in /etc/makepkg.conf disables check, building and checking must be separate steps.

wbthomason commented on 2019-07-30 03:02

@haawda: Thanks for the update! Might I suggest, however, that it would be better to keep both the build and check functions, but use a different build directory for the check function (to prevent it from interfering with the actual build)? That seems like a cleaner separation of purposes; it isn't a great idea to have the check function also responsible for the main package building.

Alternately, if one of the functions has to go, it probably ought to be the check function, and the checks can be enabled in the main build instead. This is still cleaner than having the check function responsible for building.

haawda commented on 2019-07-30 01:12

Thanks for the help and the patience. I now removed the build function entirely.