|
On 05/29/2012 11:00 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2012 06:34 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
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.
That's true. I guess locking dependencies to rosdistro name is
a lot easier than doing package versions.
Sorry to just jump in the discussion, but if we keep this naming
scheme we will need to review all ROS packages when a new release
(with a new codename) is available. Isn't it better to move
codename to the release tag and use version dependent Requires to
prevent half deployment updates?
Regards,
Hedayat
http://spot.fedorapeople.org/ros/
Great!
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? :)
I believe I found the repository for the "ROS" pcl:
https://github.com/wg-debs/pcl
This tree includes the ModelCoefficients and friends that are
missing from upstream pcl.
Rich
_______________________________________________
robotics mailing list
robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
|
_______________________________________________
robotics mailing list
robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
