On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, tkruse <tibokruse@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Finally the concept of meta-package should be extended in my opinion. If
> it does not make sense for meta-packages to declare other dependencies than
> the packages they "contain", then the standard should forbid this (and
> validate that), meaning the meta-package tag should not be in the exports
> section and should have an alternative syntax where things are not allowed.
> E.g. may a meta-package have a CMakeLists, have sources, generate
> executables, etc.? If not, the REP needs to say so, in my opinion.
>

Do meta-packages need to be anything more than a single file with the same
information as a rosinstall file?


-- 
Jonathan Bohren
PhD Student
Dynamical Systems and Control Laboratory
Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics
The Johns Hopkins University

(707) 520-4736
jbo@jhu.edu