Thanks everyone for your input. It seems that we've built a consensus here. If you have any other input please do so soon. We will start to write this up as a modification of REP 003. The last item which I just want to confirm is that we talked about planning for Hydro release in July. From reviewing the possible dates, we'd like to propose setting a release date of the 29th of July, which would mean a beta freeze June 29th. And this would encompass the packages in desktop full, plus any others released in time. Tully On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM, William Woodall wrote: > There is a vast amount of ROS that is regularly used on workstations (off > robot), and beginners will often pick the default Ubuntu. So as long as we > aren't talking about only supporting 32-bit, I don't see the controversy. > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Pavel Kirienko < > pavel.kirienko.list@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > ubuntu.com still recommends 32-bit for their desktop default download. >> >> However, they recommend 64-bit for Ubuntu Server ( >> http://www.ubuntu.com/download/server), so this is controversial: >> shouldn't ROS be mainly targeted for embedded systems, where Ubuntu Server >> seems more relevant? >> >> Regards, >> Pavel Kirienko. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, William Woodall < >> william@osrfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> They recently discussed dropping 32-bit support for PCL on the >>> pcl-developer's list, but I'll point out what I said to them, which is that >>> ubuntu.com still recommends 32-bit for their desktop default download. >>> So at least for now, I think 32-bit support should stay. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Jack O'Quin wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Tully Foote wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Related to this it has been suggested to me that we could setup a >>>>> bidding/kickstarter style campaign for different platform or arch support. >>>>> If people are interested we could estimate what it would take to support >>>>> builds on extra arch/platform combinations for the duration of a release. >>>>> And if there is enough community support to fund the project we can turn >>>>> on specific architectures. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>>> Also we are currently building i386 and amd64, we could consider >>>>> dropping i386 on some platforms to save resources. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Looking forward, I suspect most PC users will be 64-bit, and the main >>>> 32-bit platform will be ARM. That may be true already. Perhaps people would >>>> favor substituting some common ARM platform for i386. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please take a look at the results of both surveys and the above >>>>> proposal and give your feedback. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 It's a good plan, balancing a great many divergent needs. >>>> -- >>>> joq >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ros-users mailing list >>>> ros-users@code.ros.org >>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William Woodall >>> ROS Development Team >>> william@osrfoundation.org >>> http://williamjwoodall.com/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > William Woodall > ROS Development Team > william@osrfoundation.org > http://williamjwoodall.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > >