On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Ken Conley wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Jack O'Quin wrote: >>  * We depend on the `*-dev` packages for source builds, but not for >> binary installs. Which should be specified? Should we pull in the >> development package anyway for binary installs? (I believe that is >> currently the case.) > > For now, -dev must be included. None of the release tools distinguish > between "Build-Depends" and "Depends", though this is definitely a > future desire.  It's also an artifact of not producing -dev versions > for ROS stacks. Does that mean we should leave off the `-dev` suffix in our rosdep keys? >>  * In most cases, renaming a system-wide rosdep key deserves some sort >> of tick-tock with deprecation in one release and removal in the next. >> Presumably meta-entries can provide two names simultaneously during >> the overlap period. I can't think of a way to issue a deprecation >> message, however. At least, that allows externally-maintained >> repositories to build the same source code on both Electric and >> Fuerte. That is important to people like me. > > +1 to tick-tock, though Fuerte is a chance to jump the chasm, so to > speak, as rosdep has two distinct databases.  Creating the unified > database already pointed out inconsistencies with rules like Qt, which > created some realignment in the core stacks. Good point about Fuerte and Electric using distinct databases. That suggests a focused effort to "normalize" the names before Fuerte final freeze. >>  * Since these are system dependencies, I suggest adopting names >> similar to the corresponding Ubuntu package names. Although other >> packaging systems use different names, that at least provides a >> canonical list that anyone can guess. > > Sure, though it's the case that anything that is built as part of > catkin/Fuerte assumes the name of the project, so there are some > exceptions like ROS stacks and libraries like eigen, opencv, and pcl. In a sense, the ROS names of those packages are the "official" names. >>  * For complicated dependencies like OpenCV, PCL and Qt, meta-entries >> are a good idea. It should still be possible to depend on subsets of >> those entire sets of libraries. For example, we want packages to be >> able to use pcl_common without pulling in every single PCL library. > > BTW: PCL in Fuerte is roughly equivalent to pcl-all, but they are > *not* the same debs as in the ppa. It should be possible in the future > to produce an equivalent set of separate debs. Is there any hope of getting a stripped-down pcl_common into Fuerte? The `pcl_ros` package should really only depend on that, a significant special case. --  joq