Yes, we do plan to spin down the builds of EOL'd Ubuntu platforms. we have
not done this yet as we do not have that level of configuration built into
the buildfarm. So we'll need to do some development to support that.

With respect to libgphoto2 this isn't an EOL issue. It appears that in
Saucy only libgphoto2-6-dev was released to replace libgphoto2-2-dev but
the decision was reverted in trusty. So to fix this we just need to update
the rosdep rule.


Link online:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=libgphoto2-6-dev&searchon=names

From saucy/amd64 Packages file:
Package: libgphoto2-6-dev
Priority: optional
Section: libdevel
Installed-Size: 11550
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
Original-Maintainer: Debian PhotoTools Maintainers <
pkg-phototools-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Architecture: amd64
Source: libgphoto2
Version: 2.5.2-0ubuntu5
Replaces: libgphoto2-2-dev
Depends: libgphoto2-6 (= 2.5.2-0ubuntu5), libexif-dev, libusb-1.0-0-dev,
libc-dev, pkg-config
Conflicts: libgphoto2-2-dev
Filename:
pool/main/libg/libgphoto2/libgphoto2-6-dev_2.5.2-0ubuntu5_amd64.deb
Size: 3340498
MD5sum: d57c9dc5d1d22c38edeec64902755179
SHA1: 6f1ad45da2c535f799268e13f9b7f81fcc6b151f
SHA256: 9974beae6a435a5678e24d8e02abfefe36097e8db9c009920ee5cd783f68f019
Description: gphoto2 digital camera library (development files)
Homepage: http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/
Description-md5: 09f6d0ae3f118a398b90fb84845618e0
Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
Origin: Ubuntu
Supported: 9m



Tully


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Vincent Rabaud <vincent.rabaud@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> just a thought: we've had problems with Quantal and Oneiric builds in the
> past. And I see the same thing now on Saucy (
> http://jenkins.ros.org/view/IbinS32/job/ros-indigo-rospilot_binarydeb_saucy_i386/
> simply because for some reason,
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/libgphoto2-2-dev was not released in
> Saucy).
> Indigo is also an LTS for 5 years and I doubt we'll keep maintaining 10
> Ubuntu distributions.
>
> Wouldn't completing REP003 with dropping an Ubuntu distribution once it's
> out of life a good thing ? Do we have stats on package downloads to back
> that up ? Docs for what to drop here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
> That would also obviously make bloom and builds faster (or cheaper).
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-release mailing list
> ros-release@code.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release
>
>