On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Ken Conley <kwc@willowgarage.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> 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?

I think it means that we should put on the suffix, per your proposal.
It makes it obvious that the rosdep keys *always* give you -dev
versions, so there are no surprises.

>>>  * 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.

Yes. We'd probably want to normalize the ones used in the catkin-ized
stacks first, then pick our battles after.  There be dragons.

>
>>>  * 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.

Probably not. That's definitely first freeze material and the sort of
thing that always bites us badly if we attempt to repackage this late.

 - Ken


> --
>  joq