Re: [Fedora-packaging] Using SCLs for ROS releases vs simply dumping them into /opt/ros/$ros-release
Hi Toshio,
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 21:37 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
It all depends on the goals. If the goal is for an upstream to provide their own packages that you get from them to run on fedora then their method is probably fine.
Upstream doesn't provide rpms, only debs. Even the new bloom addition only provides spec files as far as I can see, but I haven't tested it out yet to be sure.
If the goal is to submit to fedora then probably non-scl and installing to /usr is what's needed.
This is what we were working on till now. We picked ros-groovy as the release we wanted to provide in Fedora and were packing it up with various patches to make it install to /usr. However, at the time we made this decision, SCLs weren't much in the picture and neither was the Fedora.next system where we could have "rings" of application systems. There wasn't anything else that could be done really.
If the goal is to have parallel installed same versions then using scls may be the way to go. (But do note that there is a fair bit of overhead in terms of packaging to do this... but some portion of the effort carries over to future parallel versions.
Ideally, this is what we'd like to do, to be able to provide users with all releases of ROS. For example, even at the lab I work in, some people use ros-fuerte, some use ros-groovy (they have good support for the PR2 robot) and some have already moved on to ros-hydro. ROS upstream intentionally choose to install packages into /opt/ so that users (most of which are researchers) could run multiple releases in parallel.
I do understand that there's an overhead in maintaining multiple releases. It's why we had chosen to pack up only one ROS release for Fedora. However, with bloom generating spec files for us, this would hopefully be manageable. If we don't have to modify upstream build files to install to /usr, the work is *considerably* lessened too. (I'd expect to have more people helping us too, since it's less work to package stuff up if it's going into /opt straight away.)
Upstream recently informed me:
- With respect to the SCLs OSRF is now a registered LSB provider for "ros" http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt
I think SCLs are the way to go. ROS fits in perfectly here.
https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/pull/228
On 02/08/2014 02:04 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi Toshio,
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 21:37 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
It all depends on the goals. If the goal is for an upstream to provide their own packages that you get from them to run on fedora then their method is probably fine.
Upstream doesn't provide rpms, only debs. Even the new bloom addition only provides spec files as far as I can see, but I haven't tested it out yet to be sure.
If the goal is to submit to fedora then probably non-scl and installing to /usr is what's needed.
This is what we were working on till now. We picked ros-groovy as the release we wanted to provide in Fedora and were packing it up with various patches to make it install to /usr. However, at the time we made this decision, SCLs weren't much in the picture and neither was the Fedora.next system where we could have "rings" of application systems. There wasn't anything else that could be done really.
If the goal is to have parallel installed same versions then using scls may be the way to go. (But do note that there is a fair bit of overhead in terms of packaging to do this... but some portion of the effort carries over to future parallel versions.
Ideally, this is what we'd like to do, to be able to provide users with all releases of ROS. For example, even at the lab I work in, some people use ros-fuerte, some use ros-groovy (they have good support for the PR2 robot) and some have already moved on to ros-hydro. ROS upstream intentionally choose to install packages into /opt/ so that users (most of which are researchers) could run multiple releases in parallel.
If you want to provide more releases, then SCL is good choice.
I do understand that there's an overhead in maintaining multiple releases. It's why we had chosen to pack up only one ROS release for Fedora. However, with bloom generating spec files for us, this would hopefully be manageable. If we don't have to modify upstream build files to install to /usr, the work is *considerably* lessened too. (I'd expect to have more people helping us too, since it's less work to package stuff up if it's going into /opt straight away.)
I guess installation and workflow for SCLs in Fedora wasn't solved yet. If you are using copr, it's way to go before we will figure out.
Upstream recently informed me:
- With respect to the SCLs OSRF is now a registered LSB provider for
"ros" http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt
I think SCLs are the way to go. ROS fits in perfectly here.
Nice :)
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Marcela
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ankur Sinha -
Marcela Mašláňová