On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:41 AM, tkruse wrote: > Hi, > > thanks to Dirk for creating the REP. > > My review comments (sorry for providing that many): > > * packages could have a namespace (stack), or "group", or similar to give > more structure. E.g.: package: amcl, group: navigation > * Attributes "brief" and "email" could be tags as well, based on the > rationale given in the REP > I don't think making emails into tags makes much sense, because then there is no relationship between specific author/email pairs, but brief could be a separate tag, but being an attribute might encourage people to make them briefer. * URL types could be more, and the semantics should be stated when no type > is given. > * bugtracker url could have more information, to help later creation of > cli tool that creates tickets > * The REP could mention YAML and JSON, and why they were not chosen as a > replacement > * The REP could mention which ROS package / library will provide the > validation / parsing, to prevent many packages from writing their own > parser. * It might be good to think ahead, that the syntax will change, and declare > what version of the package.xml syntax a given package.xml adheres to. > A version attribute for makes sense to me. > * The REP should provide the XML schema for review, not just announce it > to be available > * maintainer could be an attribute of author. > Maintainer might not be an author. > * http://ros.org/wiki/Manifest also mentions logo tag (was that ever > used?) > * The structure depends, run_depends, build_depends is not future proof, > more scopes might become relevant > I like Damon's suggestion of having just but having an optional scope attribute. > * Also the depends semantics should be clarified, what effect will it have > if I put xyz in the package.xml? > * The document structure is weird, an additional header after the example > might be useful > * build_type should be put in the example > * for the export tag, the valid subtags should be listed > * The naming convention for the name tag differ from: > http://www.ros.org/wiki/Naming (lowercase, dashes?, must start with > letter) > * dashes in the name??? > I agree, when you consider the recommendation to make the containing folder match the name, dashes don't make sense. > * message_generator tag description could be more verbose, also what is > the API / contract for such packages? > * REP should mention which tools are known to rely on stack.xml / > package.xml (possibly also in what way they will be changed) > * "For catkin packages these files will be auto generated." sounds > weird/redundant, as package.xml files are only supposed to work in catkin > packages. > I think he means the manifest.xml files (for automatic backwards compatibility). > * why is the run_depend information used to determine build order? (Copy & > paste bug) -> explain what the run_depend tag is really used for > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ROS Buildsystem Special Interest Group" group. > To post to this group, send email to ros-sig-buildsystem@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > ros-sig-buildsystem+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ros-sig-buildsystem/-/QxPm3ouS5UQJ. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- William Woodall Willow Garage - Software Engineer wwoodall@willowgarage.com