On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jonathan Bohren
<jonathan.bohren@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We need to resolve some fundamental build and filesystem layout issues
>> in time for Groovy.
>>
>> There are basic problems with REP-0122 that we were not able to fix in
>> time for Fuerte. To me, the biggest issue is placing binary files
>> under the "share" directory. But, there are others mentioned in the
>> REP, itself:
>>
>>  http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0122.html#future-work
>>
>
> I know this is slightly off-topic, but now that you bring this up, I always
> felt that the removal of roscreate-stack was overkill. If it's worth
> anything, I think it should be brought back. It doesn't need to deal with
> dependencies, but it's useful just to not have to copy the CMakeLists,
> Makefile, and stack.xml from a stack I've already created.

+1 for reintroducing roscreate-stack without dealing with dependencies

>
> One important thing I'd like people to keep in mind when discussing the
> install behavior is that most ROS development environments have tons of
> non-installed packages. The package semantics were really designed for that
> use-pattern and it would be unfortunate if installation-behavior changes
> diminished the speed and flexibility that the uninstalled stack/package
> semantics provide.
>
> -j
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>