On 05/29/2012 06:34 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
> That's an interesting approach, it should help keep things more
> consistent across distributions. Are the packages also doing a
> Provides: without the codename, so rpm can handle upgrades properly?
They are, but the Requires have the %{codename} macro in them (where
appropriate), because we'll want people to not update half of a ros
deployment.
>> We should check that, but I don't think so.
>>
> You're right, rospkg only provides /usr/bin/rosversion and a rospkg
> python egg.
>> Okay. I'll upload them and post again when they're up.
>
> Great! Looking forward to it.
http://spot.fedorapeople.org/ros/
>> I think we're going to need to do more than that. Is Tim (the PCL
>> maintainer) on this list? I still haven't found a working combination
>> yet.
>
> Tim is indeed on this list, I've CC'd him on this message in case he has
> missed this thread.
I didn't get as much time as I'd have liked to try PCL today. I did pull
the source from trunk and make a test package with it, the results are
as follows:
A normal build of PCL from trunk has the same ROS perception_pcl
compilation issues as the stock 1.5.1 build of PCL. When I built PCL
from trunk with -DUSE_ROS=ON, it has the same issues as when I do the
-DUSE_ROS=ON build of PCL 1.5.1 (specifically, it can't find headers).
The Ubuntu dpkg has custom ROS headers which replace the missing PCL
headers, but I'm reluctant to just chunk them in place, because I don't
know if there is other non-header ROS specific codechanges that I'd
need. Tim, do you know how to build the magic "ROS" PCL? :)
~tom
==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
robotics mailing list
robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
