Hi,
Bloom, the ROS generator system has recently gotten support to generate rpms[1]. At the moment, the author is simply putting releases into /opt/ros/$ros-release and isn't making use of SCLs. Is this OK, or should they use SCLs?
As you'll see from the ticket, I've already pointed him to SCLs, but considering that he's already using /opt/ros/$ros-release, and not the system directories, I'm wondering how using SCLs would be any different?
[1] https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/pull/228
On 02/07/2014 01:51 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
Bloom, the ROS generator system has recently gotten support to generate rpms[1]. At the moment, the author is simply putting releases into /opt/ros/$ros-release and isn't making use of SCLs. Is this OK,
No, this is not OK
or should they use SCLs?
Neither.
The package should integrate into the system directories.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/07/2014 01:51 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
Bloom, the ROS generator system has recently gotten support to generate rpms[1]. At the moment, the author is simply putting releases into /opt/ros/$ros-release and isn't making use of SCLs. Is this OK,
No, this is not OK
or should they use SCLs?
Neither.
The package should integrate into the system directories.
If it is a Fedora package, then it should integrate into the system directories. If it is a third-party package that doesn't follow Fedora's packaging standards, then this is what /opt is for. "ros" is registered as a provider name for the Open Source Robotics Foundation (http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt), so if that's the ROS we're talking about, then /opt/ros is right.
That doesn't answer the question about SCLs though.
Björn Persson
Hi,
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 19:49 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
If it is a Fedora package, then it should integrate into the system directories. If it is a third-party package that doesn't follow Fedora's packaging standards, then this is what /opt is for. "ros" is registered as a provider name for the Open Source Robotics Foundation (http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt), so if that's the ROS we're talking about, then /opt/ros is right.
Yes. That's the ROS we're talking about.
That doesn't answer the question about SCLs though.
So, in the future, are SCLs going to be "Fedora packages" that we serve from our repos via koji/bodhi? Or, are we going to continue serving them off copr and other places?
From all the talk about Fedora.next and the rings and the SCL guidelines etc., I *thought* we'd include SCLs in the Fedora repos.
I talked this over with the robotics SIG and the SCL mailing list. Even though just placing files in /opt/ros/{release} seems OK, SCLs are a much cleaner way to go. I'm pushing stuff to a copr repo for the time being.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:27:54PM +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
From all the talk about Fedora.next and the rings and the SCL guidelines etc., I *thought* we'd include SCLs in the Fedora repos.
I think that's the way it's going. However, it may be cleaner for those Fedora repos to be additional ones, not the current main Fedora repo.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:27:54PM +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 19:49 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
If it is a Fedora package, then it should integrate into the system directories. If it is a third-party package that doesn't follow Fedora's packaging standards, then this is what /opt is for. "ros" is registered as a provider name for the Open Source Robotics Foundation (http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt), so if that's the ROS we're talking about, then /opt/ros is right.
Yes. That's the ROS we're talking about.
That doesn't answer the question about SCLs though.
So, in the future, are SCLs going to be "Fedora packages" that we serve from our repos via koji/bodhi? Or, are we going to continue serving them off copr and other places?
From all the talk about Fedora.next and the rings and the SCL guidelines etc., I *thought* we'd include SCLs in the Fedora repos.
I talked this over with the robotics SIG and the SCL mailing list. Even though just placing files in /opt/ros/{release} seems OK, SCLs are a much cleaner way to go. I'm pushing stuff to a copr repo for the time being.
Looking at http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/cottsay/rosrpm-poc/monitor/ which is I guess the copr repo mentionned here, I've got to ask, what does SCL bring you in this case compared to normal packages installing in the standard places?
I do realize that's quite a number of packages but SCLs are not designed (at least as far as I understood it) to replace the process of adding packages that could be added in the fedora repo.
I don't see any specific gcc, python, ruby that would make using SCLs sensible (as in the version provided by Fedora does not work/is too recent to build these packages).
As a side note, I see RPMFusion is required for the build, so that will remain a no-go for Fedora, SCLs or not.
Regards, Pierre
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 17:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/07/2014 01:51 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
Bloom, the ROS generator system has recently gotten support to
generate
rpms[1]. At the moment, the author is simply putting releases into /opt/ros/$ros-release and isn't making use of SCLs. Is this OK,
No, this is not OK
or should they use SCLs?
Neither.
The package should integrate into the system directories.
I'm afraid we can't provide users with multiple ros releases if we work on this. Please read my other reply to the list.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ankur Sinha -
Björn Persson -
Matthew Miller -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Ralf Corsepius