On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Jack O&#39;Quin <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jack.oquin@gmail.com" target="_blank">jack.oquin@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div id=":2s7">We need to resolve some fundamental build and filesystem layout issues<br>
in time for Groovy.<br>
<br>
There are basic problems with REP-0122 that we were not able to fix in<br>
time for Fuerte. To me, the biggest issue is placing binary files<br>
under the &quot;share&quot; directory. But, there are others mentioned in the<br>
REP, itself:<br>
<br>
 <a href="http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0122.html#future-work" target="_blank">http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0122.html#future-work</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div>I know this is slightly off-topic, but now that you bring this up, I always felt that the removal of roscreate-stack was overkill. If it&#39;s worth anything, I think it should be brought back. It doesn&#39;t need to deal with dependencies, but it&#39;s useful just to not have to copy the CMakeLists, Makefile, and stack.xml from a stack I&#39;ve already created.<div>

<br></div><div>One important thing I&#39;d like people to keep in mind when discussing the install behavior is that most ROS development environments have tons of non-installed packages. The package semantics were really designed for that use-pattern and it would be unfortunate if installation-behavior changes diminished the speed and flexibility that the uninstalled stack/package semantics provide.</div>

<div><br></div><div>-j</div>