robotics February 2014

robotics@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
2 discussions

Re: [Fedora Robotics] Update python-catkin_pkg - new maintainer
by Ankur Sinha 08 Feb '14

08 Feb '14

On Sat, 2014-02-08 at 17:38 -0700, Scott K Logan wrote: > Thanks Ankur and Rich! > > I'm excited to get started as soon as I can! > > Rich - just want to make sure you're in the loop on > https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/pull/228 > > Ankur - when you mentioned Copr, I got started using that instead of > building locally (easier to share packages). Yeah. It sure is :) > > I've got updated versions of the ROS underlay packages there, and I > think they should be pushed ASAP [1]. Changes include: > > * Update release from upstream > * Include dependencies (They were all missing multiple installation > requirements) > * %check sections (where applicable) Ah great. We'll start working on updating the Fedora packages. I assume the underlays are common between all ROS releases and we won't need to ship these in SCLs? I mean, we can make these available in the Fedora repos themselves and only use SCLs for release specific components? > > I think we should also add python-rosinstall_generator as it is needed > for source install of groovy+. I'll push an RPM to the aforementioned > Copr repository as soon as I have it done. I just packaged it up yesterday. See the review ticket here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 There's a build in my copr already: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/ankursinha/ros-groovy/monitor/ I'll push the package to the Fedora repos as soon as my SCM request is approved. > > I'll keep an eye on the SCL information as well! I'm completely open to > using SCLs, as ROS is a great application thereof. The only reason I > went with the /opt/ros/{distro} system to begin with is because that is > what they do in the Ubuntu builds, and I had no reason to change it. As > soon as I get caught up on the SCLs, I'll look at how to add them to the > existing infrastructure in a way that is maintainable. Aye. SCLs use /opt/ too, so it shouldn't be too much work. They even have a spec2scl utility that we can use: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/spec2scl The advantage of using SCLs is that each SCL is completely separate from the other, and there aren't any chances of conflicts etc. I'm still talking to the packaging SIG about it and they've provided valuable input. From what they've said till now, we might need to stick to copr for a while. > > I've also got some ideas for adding *-devel noarch metapackages to the > existing infrastructure (something that Ubuntu doesn't have right now!). > I'll make a branch on my bloom repo with the commits present and bounce > it off from the pull request thread when its ready. Sure. That sounds awesome :) > > Thanks so much, gentlemen! I look forward to working with you! We look forward to working with you too. Hopefully, we'll get ROS on to Fedora quickly this time. Thanks a bunch for your work on bloom. I never got around to completing what I'd started. PS: CCing the robotics list to keep other interested parties in the loop -- 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

Bloom gets an RPM generator and using SCLs for ROS
by Ankur Sinha 07 Feb '14

07 Feb '14

Hi, Looks like someone finished what I'd begun: https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/bloom/pull/228 I'll test it out ASAP. Since we're moving towards using SCLs with Fedora.next, I was wondering if we could use SCLs to provide ROS releases in parallel? What do you folks think? -- 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 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

robotics February 2014