On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Brian Gerkey <
gerkey@willowgarage.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ken Conley <kwc@willowgarage.com> wrote:
>> lib/ is, as Jack and you have well-argued, the correct choice.
>> libexec/ would be a nice choice if we didn't have to package on
>> Debian/Ubuntu. A lib/ros/<ros-package-name> scheme would provide good
>> sandboxing for the executables that roslaunch can invoke. REP 123
>> would have to be updated with a new environment variable so that the
>> location of 'lib' can be found.
>>
>> We can start working on implementation changes post-Fuerte and have
>> this well-formed for Groovy. Stacks that are converted to catkin in
>> Fuerte will need to be branched, but as we have kept this set
>> intentionally small, it should not be too difficult.
>
> FWIW, switching from share/<ros-package-name> to
> lib/<ros-package-name> should be easy and low-risk. If that's
> preferred to share/<ros-package-name>, it could be done for Fuerte.
> Switching to share/ros/<ros-package-name> is riskier, but can be
> easily tested. I'll look into it.
+1 for any switch to the lib/ subtree. While I think
lib/ros/<ros-package-name> would be better in the long run, that is
not as important as getting binaries out of share/.
I doubt we will be releasing packages to /usr in the Fuerte timeframe, anyway.
--
joq
(text/plain)