[turf, junction] new ports

[mathisloge]

Describe the pull request
adds turf and junction

• What does your PR fix?

  Fixes [New Port Request] junction #17433

• Which triplets are supported/not supported? Have you updated the CI baseline?

  linux, windows static

• Does your PR follow the maintainer guide?

yes

• If you have added/updated a port: Have you run ./vcpkg x-add-version --all and committed the result?

  yes

[mathisloge]

@xanderdunn please review and if you have time, please test

[xanderdunn]

@mathisloge huge thanks for putting this together. After further development with junction we've decided to move away from it for several reasons:

• junction only supports raw pointers as keys and values in the hash map. smart pointers are not supported. This puts the burden of memory management on the developer.
• linking with junction's turf dependency can cause problems when trying to link with -fsanitize=address because both turf and the address sanitizer library define the same symbols.
• Requires calling an update function from every thread that's accessing the concurrent hash map or memory will leak
  We've replaced our usage with libcuckoo, which is already a part of vcpkg, and so far it appears to solve the above issues

@mathisloge your original hesitation around the junction package was in the right direction.

junction can still be used successfully if a developer is careful, I think it's your call whether to include the new port. I'm happy with closing my original issue either way.

[mathisloge]

thanks for the explanations @xanderdunn .

I would move the decision if this should be included in vcpkg to the person who reviews this PR.
But as both seems to not actively developed it might be a good solution to move turf and junction into a registry. I can move them into my https://github.com/mathisloge/vcpkg-registry

[mathisloge]

@JackBoosY please decide on the comment above. Thanks

[mathisloge]

@JackBoosY whats your opinion on #17540 (comment) ?

[JackBoosY]

@mathisloge In my opinion, if the port is used by many users, it can be added to vcpkg even if there are some defects, unless the upstream has abandoned it.
vcpkg provides methods to build, install and use ports, but if the port itself contains bugs, we should let the upstream solve them.

[JackBoosY]

Waiting for #17528 merge.

[mathisloge]

I really don't know if the library is used by many users. @xanderdunn was the first one requesting this lib, but then switched back to another library. turf (last commit 4 years ago) and junction(last commit 3 years ago) are both experimental libraries. And from the comments in some issues from the upstream maintainer it seems like it wouldn't be further developed.

For this reason, I don't know if these two are usable as vcpkg ports. But this decision is up to you. :)
I can also move them over to a external registry.

[JackBoosY]

turf has almost 500 stars and junction has over 1000 stars, so I think they can be added in vcpkg.

[mathisloge]

@JackBoosY merged master after #17528 was merged and now CI is good

[strega-nil-ms]

Marking requires:discussion, as I want to seriously consider whether we wish to include two experimental and unmaintained libraries inside vcpkg; I think that @mathisloge is right, and that registries are likely the correct way forward for these ports.

[strega-nil-ms]

Since there is no upstream interest in maintaining these libraries, the builtin vcpkg registry is not the right place for them. @mathisloge, the perfect place for these is in your custom registry 😄

Thank you for the PR!

[mathisloge]

thanks for the feedback @strega-nil-ms have added them to https://github.com/mathisloge/vcpkg-registry

[mathisloge]

maybe #17433 should be closed as well? @strega-nil-ms