[ros-release] Indigo PreReleases on Trusty
jack.oquin at gmail.com
Mon Oct 26 19:57:06 UTC 2015
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:42 PM, William Woodall <william at osrfoundation.org
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jack O'Quin via ros-release <
> ros-release at lists.ros.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Daniel Stonier via ros-release <
>> ros-release at lists.ros.org> wrote:
>>> It has been a while since I've built open source debs, but this is above
>>> and beyond the effort required to prerelease for me though. It used to be
>>> such a fundamental part of the process - what is the current thinking?
>>> Given that its been out for at least three months, are most people just
>>> guessing, rebuilding on the farm, guessing again? Is there a planned remedy
>>> on the horizon?
>> Basically, yes.
>> Presently, the pre-release tests take more effort than just hoping for
>> the best and then fixing things that break.
> Why? I've been using them for rviz and it seems to work fairly well.
> What's holding up making them useful? It is just the need to install it
> into a virtualenv first?
Mainly because I don't do it often enough to remember exactly how. It takes
time to find the right archived e-mail messages, then the github issue,
checkout the correct repository, and find the virtualenv instructions
(which are not 100% correct).
Easier to just run bloom-release and hope for the best. Most of the time it
The old, web-based request page took less than a minute to submit. The only
reason it took that long was because it had to generate a list of all
> My 2 cents - I'd really love to see this working again ;) ;) ;) ;)
> Again, what's not working? Is there an issue on Github tracking the
All I can find at the moment is this PR:
Most of the discussion was on this mailing list back in August.
> Saves alot of time for me not having to ping pong back and forth trying to
>>> get my dependencies right and I'm sure it makes the job easier on the other
>>> end avoiding having so many red blips on the radar so often.
>> +1 I would find it helpful, too. I much prefer running the tests.
>> The pre-docker web interface was very convenient. I think this could be,
>> too, although it's annoying that the Trusty version of docker is too old to
> There's nothing to be done about that unfortunately.
Understood. I only mention it because it contributed to the problem.
The instructions say to download the latest Docker version. But, they
released some incompatible changes in 1.8 which most of you did not see
because you already had an earlier working Docker installed. We newbies who
had inadvertently installed 1.8 were (a) broken and (b) clueless.
So, maybe there is something that can be done, like adding instructions for
how to download a known-good version of Docker, instead of using the latest.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ros-release