+1 Tully On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Ken Conley wrote: > > > 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > > -- Tully Foote Systems Engineer Willow Garage, Inc. tfoote@willowgarage.com (650) 475-2827