On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Jack O'Quin <
jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Benjamin Pitzer <ben.pitzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, that's what I thought. I added our deps to the database today.
>>
>> I'm a little confused about the naming conventions in the database. There
>> are at least three different schemes for system libraries, e.g.:
>>
>> libjpeg
>> libdc1394-dev
>> jasper
>>
>> and I also see some meta entries such as
>>
>> opengl
>> ffmpeg
>>
>> which seem to contain multiple dependencies. If this will become the central
>> database for all released stacks I would suggest to clean this up and keep a
>> unified naming system. Otherwise this will become a mess and it will be
>> difficult to check if a particular dependency already exists.
>
> +1; this deserves some discussion.
+1 as well, though motivated just by cleaning up naming. It's
actually easier now to check if a dependency exists as all the rules
are in one place; you can just grep. The unification already resulted
in the elimination of duplicate rules across several stacks.
> * We depend on the `*-dev` packages for source builds, but not for
> binary installs. Which should be specified? Should we pull in the
> development package anyway for binary installs? (I believe that is
> currently the case.)
For now, -dev must be included. None of the release tools distinguish
between "Build-Depends" and "Depends", though this is definitely a
future desire. It's also an artifact of not producing -dev versions
for ROS stacks.
> * In most cases, renaming a system-wide rosdep key deserves some sort
> of tick-tock with deprecation in one release and removal in the next.
> Presumably meta-entries can provide two names simultaneously during
> the overlap period. I can't think of a way to issue a deprecation
> message, however. At least, that allows externally-maintained
> repositories to build the same source code on both Electric and
> Fuerte. That is important to people like me.
+1 to tick-tock, though Fuerte is a chance to jump the chasm, so to
speak, as rosdep has two distinct databases. Creating the unified
database already pointed out inconsistencies with rules like Qt, which
created some realignment in the core stacks.
> * Since these are system dependencies, I suggest adopting names
> similar to the corresponding Ubuntu package names. Although other
> packaging systems use different names, that at least provides a
> canonical list that anyone can guess.
Sure, though it's the case that anything that is built as part of
catkin/Fuerte assumes the name of the project, so there are some
exceptions like ROS stacks and libraries like eigen, opencv, and pcl.
> * For complicated dependencies like OpenCV, PCL and Qt, meta-entries
> are a good idea. It should still be possible to depend on subsets of
> those entire sets of libraries. For example, we want packages to be
> able to use pcl_common without pulling in every single PCL library.
BTW: PCL in Fuerte is roughly equivalent to pcl-all, but they are
*not* the same debs as in the ppa. It should be possible in the future
to produce an equivalent set of separate debs.
- Ken
> --
> joq
(text/plain)