On 05/29/2012 11:12 AM, Rich Mattes wrote: > That's great to hear! Before you get too far, I've already started > by packaging some of the helper utilities[1]. I think they're about > ready to post for review, which I can do tonight if you don't see any > issues. If you would like to coordinate efforts, we also have a wiki > page[2] started to track progress, we can convert it into a table with > package names, versions, packaging status, and review status, then we > can branch out and get all the specfiles written. Cool. Here's what I have packaged right now, we should definitely be on the same page with any overlap. catkin-0.3.29-1.fc17.noarch ros-fuerte-actionlib-1.8.4-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-base-1.8.7-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-bond-core-1.6.3-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-bullet-2.79-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-common-msgs-1.8.5-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-dynamic-reconfigure-1.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-filters-1.6.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-gencpp-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-genlisp-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-genmsg-0.3.5-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-genpy-0.3.3-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-geometry-1.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-image-common-1.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-nodelet-core-1.6.5-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-orocos-kinematics-dynamics-0.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-pluginlib-1.8.0-2.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-ros-1.8.7-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-ros-comm-1.8.9-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-roscpp-core-0.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-rospack-2.0.12-1.fc17.x86_64 ros-fuerte-std-msgs-0.4.6-1.fc17.x86_64 Are your helper utilities still relevant in the fuerte universe? I'm still wrapping my head around it. I know catkin is needed, but I seem to recall that the others may be obsolete. > It looks like the version of PCL that fuerte is including is marked as > 1.5.2[2]. Given the date in the package name, it looks like they > probably took an svn snapshot[3] on that date and bumped the version > from the latest release(1.5.1). I agree it would be nice if they posted > source packages with the binary packages in their ubuntu repositories. > > Are you having trouble getting things to build with the PCL packages we > have in Fedora right now? Yes, sadly. It seems like the default PCL headers in 1.5.1 conflict with the ROS headers in some pretty nasty ways. You should be able to reproduce this pretty easily by just trying to build perception_pcl (if you need my package set to resolve deps, I can toss them up somewhere). Haven't tried PCL trunk yet, but I will do so shortly. ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ robotics mailing list robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
