On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Great! Are you just making copies of their ubuntu packages at the moment? Are you shooting to replace packages like "fuerte-bullet" with distro versions of packages at some point? Using fuerte in all the package names will also force a mass re-review each time another release is done, unless these are just targeted for a fedorapeople repo.
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.
The official install instructions[1] still use them, and they still may be helpful for package generation and for developing or downloading and building third-party stacks that aren't packaged in Fedora. I think that the rospkg package might overlap with your ros-fuerte-rospack for instance.
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).
It would be great if you tossed them up on fedorapeople as you go, I'd be interested in helping you test and debug them in my spare time.
Haven't tried PCL trunk yet, but I will do so shortly.
If it works, we can probably update our package to an SVN snapshot.
Rich
_______________________________________________ robotics mailing list robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
