On, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Armin Hornung <
HornungA@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:

>  On 2013-02-20 21:25, William Woodall wrote:
>
> I have drafted a REP, tentatively REP-136, which is an Informational REP
> providing a recommendation for how to release third party packages into the
> ROS ecosystem. In this context a third party package is any software
> package which is used in the ROS ecosystem, but exists outside of the ROS
> ecosystem, and therefore is neither catkin based nor rosbuild based.
>
>  You can find this draft REP here:
>
>
> https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rep/blob/release_third_party/rep-0136.rst
>
>
> +1
>
> After using the previous version in bloom/catkin this new REP has some
> great improvements for third-party (non-catkin) packages such as OctoMap,
> and the explanations clear up many things.
>
>
>
>
>  And the pull request containing the drafting history is here:
>
>  https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rep/pull/23
>
>  To summarize the recommendation, third party packages should:
>
>    - Have a package.xml
>       - Which run_depend's on catkin
>       - Has a <build_type> tag in the <export> section
>    - Install the package.xml
>
>
> This and the motivation / rationale in the REP sound like it's recommended
> to put the package.xml in the the upstream source repo, while the
> specification recommends to inject the templated version into the
> release-repo (putting package.xml into the upstream repo is only mentioned
> as alternative). This should probably be cleared up with a clear preference
> on one method. From the maintenance overhead, putting package.xml into the
> upstream source repo sounds like the best to me (if there is control of the
> upstream repo by the maintainer).
>

Putting a package.xml and install rule in the upstream repository is the
preferred method, but I realize that many people do not want this or cannot
put this in their upstream repository, so bloom allows for injection of
these two things into the release repository.


>
> Or maybe it's just not clearly worded? The specification section mentions
> "Inject a templated package.xml into the upstream using bloom". Here,
> "upstream" probably means the upstream branch in the ros-gbp release repo,
> whereas in other places it also refers to the upstream repository. This
> should be clearly differentiated, as the context may not always be clear to
> the uninitiated reader.
>
> Other than that I only found a small (but potentially confusing) typo.
> Pull request here: https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rep/pull/28
> Is that how the process should work on GitHub?
>

That's how it works, I have merged your pull request into the third party
rep branch (which updated my pull request) Thanks!


>
> Best,
>
> --
> Armin Hornung
> Humanoid Robots Lab, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
> Contact: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~hornunga
>
>


-- 
William Woodall
Willow Garage - Software Engineer
wwoodall@willowgarage.com