[ros-release] Indigo PreReleases on Trusty

[Tully Foote]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jack O'Quin via ros-release <
ros-release at lists.ros.org> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:42 PM, William Woodall <
> william at osrfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 works. :-)
>
> 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
> indexed repositories.
>
>
>> 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
>> problem?
>>
>
> All I can find at the moment is this PR:
>
>  https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/ros_buildfarm/pull/94
>
> 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
>>> use.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>



The new release should be compatible with the latest docker now.

Tully


> --
>  joq
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-release mailing list
> ros-release at lists.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-release
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-release/attachments/20151026/56c21993/attachment-0003.html>