Hi Tully,
A Dijous 04 Octubre 2012, Tully Foote va escriure:
> Thanks for contributing these resources It will help people looking to use
> debian greatly.
I need to make some documentation. I hope soon.
> If you'd like we could also work with you to try to merge debian support
> upstream. Our whole infrastructure could be extended to support debian
> codenames as well as ubuntu ones. We don't have time to actively support
> Debian releases but patches in that direction would be accepted. Related
> to this we could consider providing your backports in the main ROS repos as
> we do for Ubuntu.
Perfect, my propose is to create some kind of debian-robotics derivative in
the way to install easily ros/orocos/ whatever robotics software in a debian
distro. I manage a group of boxes in a robotics' lab and it's a pain to
maintain ROS in this boxes. It's easy (I doubt it also ...) if you have a
ubuntu box and a monouser (or few users) but a multiuser box is ... uff.
>
> Jack's spot on with respect to PCL. The problem is that PCL standalone
> defines symbols which collide with the ROS messages. This is an artifact
> of the early development process, and can't be fixed without an api
> breaking change on either side.
thanks for the explanation. Now it's more clear.
> To build the same version as in ROS see
> this repository [1] It is a git-buildpackage repository with all the tags
> generated for Ubuntu, and can easily be extended for other debian codenames
> into sourcedebs.
Ok I don't understand this. Are you saying that the repo [1] has a version of
the perception package that could compile with a stand-alone version of pcl?
Otherwise it's not easy (at least for me) to create a debian (pure Debian, not
Ubuntu) package from that sources. It requires the catkin package and by now,
waiting the fhs transition it's not easy to prepare.
<rant mode>
It's really so complicate to have a full ROS system in a no ubuntu box!!!
</rant mode>
Regards,
Leo
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> > <leo@alaxarxa.net> wrote:
> > > A Dimecres 03 Octubre 2012, Rich Mattes va escriure:
> > >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda
> > >> <leo@alaxarxa.net>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > First of all I have noticed that there are several packages that has
a
> > >> > dependency a pcl package, when there's no pcl package, but there's a
> > > system
> > >> > dependency pcl. So, I have to change several manifest files from
> > >> >
> > >> > <depend package="pcl" />
> > >> >
> > >> > to
> > >> > <rosdep name="pcl" />
> > >> >
> > >> > Also, I have not be able to found which version of pcl is needed for
> > > fuerte
> > >> > (1.5, 1.6) With 1.6 it doesn't compile.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> We had a lot of fun trying to figure this out in Fedora[1] as well. As
> > it
> > >> turns out, you can't use the upstream PCL release for Fuerte, you need
a
> > >> custom branch of PCL hosted on github[2] which contains extra message
> > >> definitions and stack metadata. I raised the issue upstream[3] and it
> > >> looks like we have to wait for PCL 2.0 for ROS to build against PCL as
a
> > >> stand-alone library instead of requiring that PCL be modified. We're
> > going
> > >> to try to patch Fedora's system PCL to make it a hybrid ROS stack and
> > >> stand-alone library so that ROS is usable until this situation is
> > resolved.
> > >> It seems this issue is pretty[4] common[5].
> > >
> > > Well, we want something similar. A PCL version stand-alone that could be
> > used
> > > by ros.
> > >
> > > I have seen the github code, and it doesn't seems that use the ROS
stuff,
> > > although is required by cmake. From a ROS full installation (188)
> > packages I
> > > have compiled 106, considering that pcl is not built or installed.
> > >
> > > I hope to have something functional some day ...
> >
> > So do I.
> >
> > Many people have stumbled over this problem in Fuerte. And, I fear it
> > may not get better in Groovy. I really hope I end up being wrong about
> > that.
> >
> > I think PCL must have fallen in the cracks during the Fuerte release.
> > Many of us expected catkin to solve the problem of building
> > stand-alone PCL with the ROS message tools. That only half worked.
> > Thanks to catkin, PCL can now optionally be built to use standard ROS
> > messages, such as sensor_msgs/PointCloud2. But unfortunately, PCL also
> > defines several ROS messages of its own: ModelCoefficients,
> > PointIndices, PolygonMesh, and Vertices, which cannot reasonably be
> > handled by the stand-alone PCL build. The changes to the PCL 1.5
> > sources were too large, messy and complex to merge into their
> > stand-alone tree.
> >
> > To ship a working Ubuntu version for Fuerte, the wg-debs/pcl github
> > project was created. Unfortunately, the main purpose of wg-debs is to
> > add the Debian rules and source control for several Ubuntu packages
> > hosted on packages.ros.org because they are necessary rosdep
> > dependencies. Getting that to work for PCL involved significant
> > additional source changes, mostly defining those additional messages
> > and using them in PCL.
> >
> > That mostly solved the problem for Ubuntu systems. But, it leaves no
> > good solution for other Linux distros, Mac OSX, ARM boards, other
> > embedded systems, or anyone wanting to build everything from source.
> >
> > When PCL 2.0 comes out, it will only use PCL-defined types, no ROS
> > messages. So, these problems should eventually go away. Until then,
> > the ROS community needs to provide a PCL 1.x version that can be built
> > and installed from source on any of our target platforms. Then, the
> > Ubuntu Debian packages should be built from that. Unfortunately, that
> > will demand considerable maintenance effort including documentation,
> > with active Q&A support both here and on the PCL forums.
> >
> > Perhaps there is some clever way to repackage those additional ROS
> > messages into a catkin ROS package that a stand-alone PCL could
> > optionally build with, as it already does with std_msgs and
> > sensor_msgs when USE_ROS is specified for building. But, that seems to
> > be beyond my current catkin and PCL skills.
> > --
> > joq
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-users mailing list
> > ros-users@code.ros.org
> > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tully Foote
> tfoote@willowgarage.com
> (650) 475-2827
>
--
--
Linux User 152692
Catalonia
(text/plain)