On 06/11/2012 09:29 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/11/2012 09:00 AM, Rich Mattes wrote:
* The build underlay we check out with rosinstall seems to change every
so often. I checked it out on june 6, and it had been updated since you
made the first package. We should figure out a way to monitor these
changes.
*sigh* Okay. Maybe we can ask the ROS community to stop doing that, or
at the very least, to consider releasing versioned source tarballs for
the build underlay? (e.g. fuerte-base-underlay-src-3.tar.gz).
It looks like rosinstall is pulling all of the stacks directly from
their corresponding *-release repositories at [1]. So they can more or
less be updated at any time it seems.
* Some of the stacks are installing themselves under /usr/share.
Programs like rosstack and rosmsg will find the messages and stacks
when /usr/share is on the ROS_PACKAGE_PATH, but I'm not sure if letting
them traverse the whole /usr/share tree as the ROS_PACKAGE_PATH is a
great idea. I think we could maybe install everything in
/usr/share/ros-fuerte instead of /usr/share, and set the
ROS_PACKAGE_PATH to that path out of the box. But then we run into
issues when packages like PCL install themselves to /usr/share and
identify themselves as stacks, so maybe we just live with it.
Yeah. I thought about this too, but it seems to be something we can live
with.
Yeah the more I think about it the more I lean towards using /usr/share
and dealing with it as well. It doesn't seem to be slowing things down
all that much.
* Are all of the symlinks to /usr/bin/* and /usr/lib{,64}/* ok? Do we
need them since PATH and ld already know where to find things? I went
over the guidelines and didn't see anything that said they weren't, but
boy does it seem clumsy.
Well, I wasn't sure. I do know that a lot of the ROS tooling calls
binaries on the assumption that they're in the stack dir, so I don't
think we can drop those symlinks, and I wasn't sure initially if some of
the libs were being dlopened at any point, so I just kept making those
symlinks. I'm also trying to comply with the letter of the FHS on those
items.
It's clumsy, but that's because the ROS stack model is so... clumsy. I'm
still not thrilled that the shared libraries aren't versioned.
REP 122 seems to indicate that this will be changing in the future, so
maybe the ugliness of the stacks/ directory is only a temporary woe.
I think we're making good progress, I'll try to reach out to the ROS
community and let them know what we're up to and if they have any
advice/feedback.
Hopefully you will have better luck reaching them than I did before. :)
I sent a message with a bunch of questions off to the ros-users list[3],
I'm hoping to get some feedback on some of these questions.
Rich
[1] https://github.com/wg-debs/
[2] http://ros.org/reps/rep-0122.html
[3] http://code.ros.org/lurker/message/20120616.014609.b2d729f5.en.html
_______________________________________________
robotics mailing list
robotics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/robotics
