On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Ken Conley wrote: > Thanks to all who provided comments on the rospkg API. Now that the > comment deadline has passed, I have added a summary to the review page of > proposed/adopted changes: > > http://www.ros.org/wiki/rospkg/Reviews/2011-09%20rospkg#Meeting_agenda > > I don't think it will be necessary to hold a formal meeting given that the > changes are fairly simple. > > Most of the changes are minor or additions of missing APIs. The main, > breaking change being proposed is: > > rospkg.RosPack(ros_root='foo', ros_package_path='path1:path2') > > to > > rospkg.RosPack(path=['foo', 'path1:path2']) > Sorry for the bad cut-and-paste, this should be: rospkg.RosPack(path=['foo', 'path1', 'path2']) > > As well a similar changes to remove explicit knowledge of ROS_ROOT and > ROS_PACKAGE_PATH from the RosPack/RosStack APIs. The motivation for this > change is forwards compatibility and versatility (see below). > > This change was proposed by Tully and I'm inclined to accept it barring any > objections (which you may not in the normal "+1", "-1" style). > > - Ken > > > Forwards compatibility: > > ROS_ROOT, as opposed to just a generic ROS_PACKAGE_PATH, is mainly > necessary for constructing a system PATH; future changes will make this no > longer necessary, and thus make ROS_ROOT vestigial. > > Versatility: > > By accepting a generic 'path' argument, the RosPack class is decoupled from > any particular idea of environment variables, etc... It just knows there is > an ordered set of paths it operates on. > > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ken Conley wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Dirk Thomas wrote: >> >>> Good suggestion. As this is the behavior of rospack, I changed rospkg >>>> to match it by default. You can get the raw export by adding a >>>> "convert=False" arg to the get_export() call instead. >>>> >>> >>> great, thank you. >>> >>> >>> A minor cosmetic issue is the printing of "READ_CACHE manifest.xml" in >>>>> rospkg/rospack.py:188. >>>>> I guest this output will be removed in the next release? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this has already been removed. I pushed 0.2.3 with the fix as >>>> well as updated get_export() API. >>>> >>> >>> It would be useful if the version number of rospkg could be determined. >>> This is not yet possible, right? >>> So could you also add a function which returns the version number of >>> rospkg? >>> >> >> Great idea. Added in the next version: >> >> $ python -c "import rospkg; print rospkg.__version__" >> 0.2.4 >> >> >> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Dirk >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> ros-users mailing list >>> ros-users@code.ros.org >>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/**listinfo/ros-users >>> >> >> >