robotics August 2013

robotics@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
5 discussions

[Fwd: [ros-users] Change in PCL dependency]
by Ankur Sinha 26 Aug '13

26 Aug '13

-------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: William Woodall <william(a)osrfoundation.org> > Reply-to: User discussions <ros-users(a)lists.ros.org> > To: User discussions <ros-users(a)code.ros.org> > Subject: [ros-users] Change in PCL dependency > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:26:18 -0700 > > We have the Hydro release coming up in a few days, and normally I > would not suggest that we make a change so close the the release, but > this appears to be the last opportunity to make this change for a long > time. > > > Currently we release PCL as a ROS package (ros-hydro-pcl), but with no > substantial patches. We would like to instead pull in official pcl-1.7 > debians and have everyone install pcl from source or from debs > themselves. This has two benefits, first that we do not have to waste > effort releasing PCL through our infrastructure, and second is that > when building ROS from source you will not need to build PCL in your > catkin workspace. > > > To facilitate this I have created two new rosdep rules: > > > libpcl-all > libpcl-all-dev > > > These rules should replace the use of the 'pcl' rosdep rule in your > package.xml's. The common case should look like this: > > > --- a/package.xml > +++ b/package.xml > > > - <build_depend>pcl</build_depend> > + <build_depend>libpcl-all-dev</build_depend> > > > > > - <run_depend>pcl</run_depend> > + <run_depend>libpcl-all</run_depend> > > > If you directly depend on pcl, then you should update your package and > release it into hydro. > > > You can raise issues or discuss our efforts to make this change here: > > > https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/issues/1676 > > > > Thanks! > > > -- > William Woodall > ROS Development Team > william(a)osrfoundation.org > http://williamjwoodall.com/ > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users(a)lists.ros.org > http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

1 0

[Fwd: [ros-users] Fwd: Announcing gazebo_ros_pkgs]
by Ankur Sinha 26 Aug '13

26 Aug '13

-------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Dave Coleman <davetcoleman(a)gmail.com> > Reply-to: User discussions <ros-users(a)code.ros.org> > To: ros-users(a)code.ros.org > Subject: [ros-users] Fwd: Announcing gazebo_ros_pkgs > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 01:30:00 -0700 > > Greetings, > > > > I'd like to announce some significant improvements in the integration > of the Gazebo simulator with ROS in next week's rollout of Hydro. > These improvements will require a few updates to existing > robot-specific ROS packages that use Gazebo, but should overall be > painless. Most importantly, we now have good documentation. > > > The old simulator_gazebo has been replaced in Hydro with a new meta > package named gazebo_ros_pkgs. The most significant difference is that > ROS no longer builds its own version of Gazebo (e.g. > ros-groovy-gazebo). Instead, ROS Hydro uses the default stand-alone > version of Gazebo as an upstream dependency (debian). The removal of a > ROS dependency held by Gazebo (urdfdom) has facilitated this change. > > > The primary changes: > * System dependency on Gazebo > * Treats URDF and SDF as equally as possible > * Adds out of the box support for controllers using ros_control > and transmissions - see diagram > * Improvements from the DARPA Virtual Robotics Challenge > * Code cleanup and reduced code duplication with Gazebo > * Four new plugins: ros_video, ros_prosilica, > ros_skid_steer_drive, ros_planar_move (thanks Piyush > Khandelwal, Zdenek Materna) > * catkin-ized > I've created a nice diagram and migration guide for the changes > involved. > > > I encourage anyone who has recently been disenfranchised with > Gazebo-ROS integration to give it another try! > > > > > Thanks, > > Dave Coleman > Open Source Robotics Foundation | 251.463.2345 | davetcoleman.com > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users(a)code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur Sinha 11484312

1 0

A bunch of ros-groovy specs are ready to be worked on!
by Ankur Sinha 24 Aug '13

24 Aug '13

Hi! I've been working on bloom for a bit now. I seem to have gotten some progress with this commit[1]. The commit message explains how it's to be used too. Please go through it. The spec files this code generated are placed here[2]. They're not complete specs, but they do have all the Requires and BuildRequires added to them. The BUILDORDER file also states in what order the packages are to be built. This should make our task slightly easier IMO. I still think all of these should be placed in a separate fedorapeople repo for the time being, may be as software collection (SCL)? That way we can package groovy and fuerte and hydro and whatever other releases they make in the near future. On the TODO list: 1. Fill the SOURCE0 field. 2. See if I can package it all up into SRPMs instead of SPEC files to make it a little easier Should I spew the specfiles into ~/rpmbuild/SPECS, and copy over the sources in tarred form to ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES? It can be done. Shouldn't be too difficult. If you can think up anything else that might be coded up, please do let me know and I'll look into it. [1] https://github.com/sanjayankur31/bloom/commit/d5c5f636e11b6e4b76ed82fdfd698… -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

1 1

Experiments with generating specs using bloom
by Ankur Sinha 04 Aug '13

04 Aug '13

Hi folks! So, I've been hacking around with bloom recently. My git branch is here[1]. I've had some success already: This template file[2], produces a spec[3]. It's hardly complete. I don't think it'll generate specs for anything other than catkin currently, since current logic looks for catkin itself. A lot more to do. A few other issues too: - The deps are really messed up. The BRs and Requires are all messed up. For instance, gtest-devel shouldn't be a "Requires". It should pull in gtest on it's own. This is probably due to the rosdep key list[4] which doesn't seem completely correct to me. Dev and non dev packages are kind of mixed up. I've recently opened a pull request[5] where I've added a lot of Fedora packages to the base.yaml packages. If you have the time, please consider taking a look and validating/improving it. - I haven't started working on the building part yet. (what debian refers to as a control file) - I'm not sure how to generate the Source0: field since the package.xml doesn't appear to have it. There might be a hint in the control template file. I'll look into this later. I'll continue working on bloom and hopefully I'll have a better update report next time. If you want to give it a whirl: - clone my repo - set up a python virtualenv - activate the virtualenv - cd <bloom-checkout> - python setup.py develop - checkout catkin somewhere - bloom-generate rpm <path to catkin checkout> --os-version=19 -d - This should generate your spec in a folder "rpm". [1] https://github.com/sanjayankur31/bloom/tree/fedora [2] http://paste.fedoraproject.org/30013/75622662/ [3] http://paste.fedoraproject.org/30012/13756222/ [4] https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/blob/master/rosdep/base.yaml [5] https://github.com/ros/rosdistro/pull/1625 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

1 1

Catkin.. *sigh*
by Ankur Sinha 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Hi, So I tried to build rpms for groovy by downloading the entire source at once and letting catkin make it all, as documented here[1]. It doesn't work. I'm not surprised. A few things: 1. The --install-space /opt/... suggestion won't work with mock, since catkin uses this in all the setup scripts. So, the setup.sh files have $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in them. I'm considering filing a bug requesting them to provide a different --root option (like every other build system does!) This link will only work when building manually with root permissions. It isn't going to work for a system wide installation, and it certainly cannot be converted to a spec file. 2. Seeing that this method isn't going to work, I dug up on catkin a little more and found that one can actually bootstrap it all from source[2][3]. I'll give this a try today and tomorrow and see if I can "spec-ify" it. The catkin package in Fedora appears to be missing some stuff though: like the catkin_init_workspace script. Rich, is this a matter of just updating the Fedora catkin package? Should I file a bug? We're carrying 0.4x and the latest seems to be 0.5+ I'll see if I can get some help on the build-sys SIG about extending bloom to spew rpms. I think this needs to be dealt with once and for all. [1] http://www.ros.org/wiki/groovy/Installation/Fedora [2] http://answers.ros.org/question/44606/bootstrapping-a-groovy-install/ [3] http://ros.org/doc/api/catkin/html/adv_user_guide/underlay.html -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

2 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

robotics August 2013