On 05/30/2012 02:07 PM, Rich Mattes wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > This looks promising! I'm going to have to rename the namespacing for > this package (and patch all dependent ROS bits to use it) to avoid > conflicting with the "normal" pcl, but at least it should get me moving > again. > > > Is the goal to eventually get ros to play nice with system-wide > libraries and apps? We already have a lot of ros dependencies packaged > or on the way (bullet, pcl, ompl, openni, gazebo, etc). The motivations > section of REP 122[1] indicates that upstream is interested in building > ROS against standalone versions of system libraries, we may want to keep > an eye on that as ros packages are submitted for review. Yes. Wherever possible, I'm using system libraries (e.g. in my ros-bullet package that is basically just a ROS wrapper for the existing bullet bits). PCL just wouldn't work because they're dependent upon a forked version of PCL. I'm not sure _why_ that is, since Willow Garage is upstream for both PCL and ROS. ~tom == Fedora Project _______________________________________________ robotics mailing list robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
